MADRID — The Spanish government has won a significant victory in a long-running legal dispute with international investors over its decision more than a decade ago to scrap renewable energy subsidies.

This week, a Belgian court overturned a ruling that ordered the Spanish government to pay investors nearly €76 million.

It was a major win for Spain, which has been fighting attempts to freeze its assets around the world from clean energy investors who claim they are owed at least €2 billion in subsidies.

The dispute dates back to 2013, in the middle of the European debt crisis, when cash-strapped Spain, then under a new conservative government, decided to remove subsidies for renewable energy. Investors who had poured money into Spanish renewables said this was a breach, as they had invested on the understanding they would receive the subsidies.

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ruled that Spain must pay the money, but the European Commission has told Spain doing so would constitute unlawful state aid.

The standoff has played out all over the world, with investors attempting to freeze Spanish assets in multiple jurisdictions. In June, U.S. investment fund Blasket Renewable Investments LLC issued subpoenas demanding documents from Adidas, Hilton Hotels, and other entities involved in Spain’s Football World Cup participation to help with its bid to freeze Spanish assets.

In the end, the team went back home with its assets intact, along with the World Cup.

Spain also has cases going on in courts in Australia, Germany and the U.S.

In 2023, a British court ordered an embargo on an international school in London owned by the Spanish state. The Belgian court’s original decision was one of the few examples where investors were successful, and the decision this week to overturn it will set a precedent for other challenges.

The case

Spain’s defense persuaded a Belgian court to lift an embargo imposed in 2025 on state-owned air-navigation company Enaire for €75.76 million, according to documents seen by POLITICO.

The case was also brought by Blasket, which bought the dispute from an investment fund called RREEF. The European Commission intervened in support of Spain.

RREEF, which was originally linked to Deutsche Bank, invested in Spanish wind and solar power under a 2007 regulatory framework that guaranteed subsidies for renewable energy. In 2013, amid the economic crisis, the government of then-Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, of the conservative People’s Party, cut those subsidies to reduce electricity costs.

International investors turned to arbitration, arguing that the Energy Charter Treaty, an international agreement signed in the 1990s, guaranteed them fair and predictable treatment. The funds sought more than €10 billion in compensation, according to sources at Spain’s Environment Ministry.

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, part of the World Bank, which handled most of the arbitration cases, ruled against Spain, though it reduced the amount sought in many cases. The total awards came to about €2 billion. In its 2019 ruling, the tribunal ordered Spain to pay RREEF €59.6 million, plus interest and costs.

Most of the claims, including RREEF’s, were sold to Blasket, which began seeking to enforce the awards. The funds have searched for Spanish assets that could be seized to satisfy the claims.

Spain says it cannot pay because the European Commission has determined that doing so would constitute unlawful state aid. The funds invested through companies based in Luxembourg, and the EU’s top court ruled that the Energy Charter Treaty did not apply to disputes between EU investors and EU member states; EU law governed instead.

In August 2026, the Commission opened infringement proceedings against Spain over a €23 million payment on an award involving a Japanese company, which was not based in the EU.

On June 17, 2025, Blasket secured a Belgian court order freezing €75.76 million belonging to Enaire, the state-owned company that manages air navigation in Spain. Enaire receives payments from Eurocontrol, the Brussels-based European organization that collects air-navigation charges from airlines and distributes the proceeds.

That arrangement made it possible to freeze Spanish public funds in Belgium. After a legal dispute, Spain deposited €75,759,538 on May 4, 2026.

The freeze was a high-profile win for investors pursuing Spain. They have secured other attachments in the United Kingdom and are engaged in ongoing U.S. court disputes over enforcement of the awards.

Spain appealed, and the European Commission intervened on its behalf. The Belgian state also argued that the attachment breached EU law. The Belgian court has now ruled in Spain’s favor, lifting the freeze and ordering Blasket to pay the legal costs.

That leaves Spain in a stronger position against international investors seeking to enforce the awards — at least within the EU.

BRUSSELS — The EU’s influential competition regulators have taken on some of the planet’s most powerful companies, from Google to Gazprom. But they are steering clear of opening a case against the world soccer governing body, FIFA. 

A complaint lodged by the European Leagues professional soccer association in October 2024 accused FIFA of abusing its dominant position by imposing its international match calendar on other sporting stakeholders. It argued that FIFA’s dual role as a governing body and the organizer of its own competitions creates a conflict of interest, through which it enriches itself. The leagues broadened the complaint last month to cover the women’s game — but the Commission has yet to open formal proceedings.

Brussels has left the European Leagues complaint in the “freezer,” one senior EU official with knowledge of the file told POLITICO. 

The episode underscores the Directorate-General for Competition’s long-running reluctance to open investigations into sports federations, which current and former European officials say is due to sport’s special status in EU law — the treaties recognize its social and educational role — but also a deliberate policy choice to swerve potentially controversial cases in an emotionally charged sector.

Now, pressure is building against the competition department over the languishing European Leagues complaint, after a cross-party group of EU lawmakers urged the Commission to use its antitrust powers to rein in FIFA. 

In a letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, obtained by POLITICO and copied to competition chief Teresa Ribera, MEPs called for action. Bruno Gonçalves and Hannes Heide (both from the Socialists and Democrats) and Bogdan Zdrojewski (from the conservative European People’s Party) asked the Commission to take formal action, including in relation to the complaint lodged by the European Leagues, which represents 53 men’s and women’s professional football leagues across the continent.

The MEPs say the governing body’s application of the calendar “raises concerns about FIFA’s use of regulatory powers to advance FIFA’s own commercial interests,” and that those powers “must be exercised through transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate procedures, with effective safeguards against conflicts of interest.” The EU’s top court set that test for sports bodies in its landmark 2023 Super League ruling.

“FIFA is both referee and promoter of the show,” Gonçalves told POLITICO. “We have to make sure the referee doesn’t put business before people.”

Representatives for the European Leagues pressed their case in a meeting with Competition Commissioner Teresa Ribera’s Cabinet in late April, but their overtures have so far been fruitless.

“The thinking has always been, on the one hand, that sports has a special status, so it is not a market comparable to others that normally are scrutinized by the competition directorate,” said one former senior EU official, who was granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive file in order to protect relationships. 

“But also, sports cases get very political and the Commission feels that member states tend to take the side of the federations so it’s hesitant to pick this fight up,” the former official added.

The Vestager principles

Over the last 15 years, Brussels has opened blockbuster investigations into Gazprom’s behavior in Central and Eastern European gas markets; whether Google illegitimately hindered the development and market access of rival mobile operating systems; and Apple’s rules for app developers.

But the Commission’s caution on sports is long-standing. 

When then-competition chief Margrethe Vestager ordered the International Skating Union in 2017 to drop rules threatening speed skaters with lifetime bans for joining money-spinning rival events, she said the decision didn’t mean the Commission was “trying to be the referee in every dispute about sport.”

Many disputes, from doping penalties to deciding the precise scheduling of games, have “little or nothing at all to do with competition rules,” Vestager said at the time. National courts and competition authorities, she added, are “usually well placed to deal with competition disputes involving a sport federation.”

Those principles have since come to guide how the Commission’s competition department decides which sports disputes to take on. There is no shortage of candidates, with controversies in sports including tennis, padel and sailing, as well as soccer.

Any investigation would test recent case law. A pair of July rulings on FIFA’s agent rules went largely the governing body’s way. In those cases, the Court of Justice of the European Union accepted that federations can impose restrictions if they pursue legitimate aims proportionately.

Ben Van Rompuy, a competition law professor at Leiden University who helped bring the original ISU complaint, said there would likely be “little appetite” in Brussels to take up the leagues’ case.

When the ISU complaint reached the Commission, courts had said little about how competition law applied to sport. Since then, “we’ve had an abundance of such guidance,” and “national enforcement in front of the courts seems to work,” Van Rompuy said. That leaves less reason for the Commission to step in. The leagues have also sued in a Brussels court, which suggests “they themselves believe that the national courts could protect their rights.”

Measured against the Commission’s own criteria for prioritizing complaints, the case looks weak, Van Rompuy said. Its impact on the EU’s internal market is “extremely limited,” he added.

FIFA declined to comment on the European Leagues complaint and the EU lawmakers’ letter.

Commission spokesperson Ricardo Cardoso said international sports bodies have “a primary responsibility” for organizing global events, and that sport is mainly a matter for national governments, with the EU playing a supporting role.

When sports organizations act as undertakings, the EU legal term for entities carrying out economic activity, they are subject to the rules of competition, Cardoso said. He added that the Commission constantly monitors markets for possible breaches, and that “if any complaint is filed, the Commission will assess according to standard practice.”

Public and political criticism of FIFA has reached fever pitch over the last 12 months due to the governing body’s cozy relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration and an ultimately aborted plot this summer to sell off parts of the World Cup tournament to private investors.

According to the letter from EU lawmakers, FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s commercial sell-off scheme “exposed serious shortcomings in transparency, accountability and institutional decision-making.”

President Donald Trump has been attacking Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) since she first entered Congress in 2019. At various points, he’s called for Omar — a progressive lawmaker who came to the United States as a child refugee from Somalia and who is one of Trump’s most vociferous critics — to be investigated, arrested, and deported. 

Now, Trump’s Justice Department is seemingly trying to make good on his threats. Last week, Omar’s Washington, DC, home was raided by federal agents from Homeland Security Investigations, an arm of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. According to the Wall Street Journal, the raid was part of an investigation into her immigration paperwork with the explicit goal of denaturalizing and deporting her.

The timing alone would make the raid unusual — it’s rare for the Justice Department to take action in political cases so close to an election — and as Washington Post immigration reporter Ted Hesson explains, it also feels uncomfortably pretextual. “It’s almost as if the outcome of the investigation has been stated before anything has taken off,” he told Today, Explained co-host Sean Rameswaram. 

Hesson joined Sean to talk about the long history of Trump’s attacks on Omar, what the agents might have been looking for, and whether the administration could actually undermine Omar’s citizenship or even deport her. 

Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.

What do we know about what federal agents were looking for in Rep. Ilhan Omar’s Washington, DC, residence?

What we’ve learned through our reporting is that the investigation has looked at both her birth date and whether [Omar or her father] may have lied about it on the naturalization application. 

A second piece is whether, looking at her father’s military service, she was born in Somalia and was there during the civil war and fled with her family as a young child to a refugee camp in Kenya and was there for years before they eventually came to the US as refugees.

This is the president of the United States and his administration entering a sitting representative’s home to figure out what her original birthday is. What is the motivation here, to the best of our knowledge?

For years, President Trump has criticized Rep. Omar and made unsubstantiated accusations related to immigration fraud. 

There have been theories circulating on the far right — again, unsubstantiated — that she had married her brother as part of an immigration fraud scheme. President Trump himself has repeated that. And several top Trump administration officials in the last few months have said that they believe that there is fraud in her background. They’re making these statements prior to there being an investigation, prior to there being evidence put forward. And it’s almost as if the outcome of the investigation has been stated before anything has taken off. 

One thing I should say is that while it does appear that they’re looking at her birthdate, when refugees come into the US, it’s extremely common that their birth records are unreliable because people are fleeing countries that are often in disarray, whether it’s due to civil war or other reasons. 

Often, nations like Somalia don’t maintain accurate birth records. So it’s common that refugees who’ve left their country as children, spent time in refugee camps, and then come to the US don’t have a solid understanding of when exactly they were born. I don’t know for sure that that’s the case here, but I know that generally when you’re dealing with refugees, that is true.

I know there’s a lot we don’t know here, but investigators enter Rep. Omar’s home. Potentially they’re looking for some documents that may list her birthday. If they find some information that’s maybe contrary to official government records, what could that mean, in theory?

It’s unclear what sort of charges could be brought from this. And part of the question is, was she 17 and a child at the time of that application or was she 18? 

Even if it was determined that she was not a child, I don’t believe they would be able to, say, launch a denaturalization process based on that fact alone. And even if they did attempt to do something like that, these things are not taken lightly and it’s a long involved legal process and very uncommon to pursue something like this over something as simple as this sort of paperwork discrepancy.

The president has a long history of hating on Somalia and Somali immigrants to this country. 

How does this investigation into Rep. Ilhan Omar fit into the president and his administration’s broader efforts to take away American citizenship?

In the past year especially, we’ve seen President Trump use really inflammatory and derogatory language to refer to Somali Americans and Somali immigrants in the US. Even for someone who frequently employs anti-immigrant rhetoric, and the president has in his past, some of the things he said went beyond even that. He does seem to have particularly targeted Somalis in the US and Somali Americans, and Rep. Omar has been part of that. 

I think what’s interesting here or what could be interesting is that this case wades into different territory of taking somebody who’s a naturalized citizen, who’s been in the US for decades as a citizen, and saying, “We’re potentially going to reopen that and go back and look at your file and see, do we find anything that might be out of line?”

The idea that you could do that with someone who’s a sitting lawmaker could mean that you could potentially do that to any other person who may have applied.

Now, one thing we’ve learned is that in the case of Rep. Omar, the administration has looked at the idea, in the event that criminal charges can’t be brought, of potentially canceling her citizenship certificate. It’s almost like a fast-track way to disrupt someone’s citizenship. 

It doesn’t remove it. You remain a citizen, but you lose the document that is the underlying proof of that, which could then cause problems with federal government documents, and it could even lead to immigration proceedings where the government tries to make the case that you should be deported.

How has Rep. Omar responded?

Her camp has vociferously pushed back against the allegations. 

In regard to the search, they’ve actually said that there was a court-ordered guideline that should have been followed, and that involved consulting the counsel for the House of Representatives before the search happened. They said that never happened, and if it had, it would’ve given Rep. Omar perhaps time to prepare for this or some sort of legal recourse. 

They’re saying that not only is this continuation of President Trump’s attack on her politically motivated, but also that the actual legal guidelines that were outlined in that search warrant were not followed.

Are other Democrats speaking up on her behalf?

Former President Barack Obama in particular is one extremely prominent person who came out and made a social media post elevating her case. 

The interesting part is that President Obama does not often weigh in on public debates like this or is at least measured in the opportunities when he does. So it comes with more gravity to hear him stepping in and raising concerns about this. 

I think it speaks to the fact that he thought this was very significant. And if you remember, President Trump’s political career was built on the narrative that Barack Obama was not born in the US.

I do remember, Ted.

And the hunt for his birth certificate. You can imagine that former President Obama saw a parallel here and realizes that this mirrors the sort of attacks that were made on him when he was in office.

We’ve talked about President Trump a bunch in this conversation, and he’s made no secret of his disdain for Rep. Omar and the country from which she comes. What has he explicitly said about this investigation?

He’s saying that the Justice Department is acting independently. That said, he has been extremely critical of Rep. Omar in his public statements and continues to be. And the president himself and other top officials have said that it should be investigated. 

We’ve had, for months now, a sort of public encouragement of top officials and saying that they should be looking into this. So whether he’s directly liaising with them or whether they’re just reading his social posts, it may be kind of a nuanced distinction. He’s publicly saying he wants this to be pursued.

On October 13th, Brendan Carr's FCC gave itself a new power - it can block gadgets for containing any computer chip made by any company on its list of potential threats to national security. Today, it's exercising that power for the first time, blocking two gadgets because they contain "foreign surveillance chips," the FCC claims.

The agency doesn't say which specific gadgets it blocked, and it didn't immediately respond to our request for comment, but it does name the "surveillance chip": it's a HiVision Hi3516CV610 UHD Smart Vision SoC, a chip that turns a raw camera sensor into a home security camera, a dashcam, or the like. It's often s …

Read the full story at The Verge.

Two years ago, University of Houston student Vasant Bhatt was doing everything he could to help Republicans regain power. He knocked doors for Sen. Ted Cruz's reelection campaign and helped organize his community for Donald Trump, two victories he, like many other Republicans, celebrated in 2024. But this week, Bhatt did something unexpected: He voted for Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico, and he publicly urged others to do the same.

Bhatt, whose father is a small-business owner, tells The Verge he was initially drawn to the Republican Party due to its economic principles. "The strong belief in individual liberty and limited …

Read the full story at The Verge.

Americans are furious about the state of our healthcare system. 

A recent KFF poll found 60 percent of US adults worry about the cost of medical care — more than gasoline, food and groceries, or their rent or mortgage. One in three Americans say they worry every day or almost every day about their ability to afford healthcare, per a new survey from the Pew Research Center. There seems to be a growing appetite for reform, too: More than 65 percent of Americans say they support the government spending more tax dollars to lower healthcare costs. 

Democrats are trying to weaponize those frustrations against the Republicans who currently hold Congress and the White House. By a 2-to-1 margin, voters say they trust Democrats over Republicans on healthcare. That could mean single-payer Medicare-for-all or a new public insurance option or maybe something else. What all this energy leads to will depend on what happens in November. The candidates themselves are framing the stakes in those existential terms. 

“Medicare for all is where we need to go,” Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic candidate in the Michigan Senate race whose support for the policy has been widely covered, said during an August interview with CNN. “And my hope is, both coming out of the 2026 midterms and then out of 2028, that we’re going to be on our way to a Senate majority to be able to get this done.”

Real change will have to wait for the 2028 presidential election and a new occupant in the White House. But this year’s midterms are still a make-or-break moment: The candidates who get elected this year, and how they shape the upcoming presidential primary debate and actions in Congress, will determine whether healthcare reform happens at all. 

If you’re fed up with the state of American healthcare, and you want to see a change, you should show up for the midterms on Tuesday, November 3.

Big midterm wins can beget big healthcare wins 

The classic pattern in American elections is that more voters go to the polls during presidential campaigns than during the midterm elections when only House and Senate seats are on the ballot. Turnout has started to tick up for the midterms in recent years, but it still trails behind presidential years. Midterms suffer from the perception that there’s not as much at stake if the White House is not on the line.

But that’s never been strictly true. 

Midterm elections are extraordinarily important in shaping the future of policymaking, even if the payoff is delayed. They help determine both the character of the Congress that could eventually pass a major bill after the next presidential election, and the kind of ideas and policies that are going to be prioritized.

“Voters should see 2026 and 2028 as the elections that will guide the next big change in our healthcare system,” said Natalie Davis, CEO and co-founder of the advocacy group United States of Care, in a statement to Vox. “These elections will be how voters’ demands are heard — and will tell us whether the next real window for change will come with serious reforms or missed opportunity.”

A walk through the recent history of healthcare reform should help make the stakes of the 2026 elections clear.

In 2006, the national mood looked similar to what we’re seeing today. A very unpopular Republican president was in office, and the country had soured on his agenda. George W. Bush’s foreign wars and his misguided attempt to overhaul Social Security gave Democrats an opportunity to win big in the 2006 midterms — and they did. Dems won more than 30 seats and secured a comfortable majority in the House. In the Senate, they won six seats and narrowly took control of that chamber too.

It was a resounding rejection of the Bush administration, and it set up the next decade of Democratic policymaking. At the highest level, the midterms gave energy to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, united as they were around their opposition to the Iraq War, and that energy carried over to the presidential primary. Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton and won the presidency, springboarding off of the excitement that started with the 2006 elections.

Dems’ success in the midterms also helped put lowering healthcare costs at the forefront of the Democratic agenda. That encouraged both Obama and Clinton to develop detailed healthcare policy proposals during their primary campaigns and ultimately set the stage for the Democrats to pursue the Affordable Care Act once they had full control of the government in 2009.

And then there is the literal size of the congressional majorities that parties need to pass their agenda. Voters may not spend much time thinking about whip counts, but one or two elections in a midterm year can ultimately decide the fate of the next president’s agenda. 

Part of the reason Democrats were able to pass the ACA was that they built on their huge wins in 2006 with more wins in 2008 and held massive congressional majorities once Obama was sworn in. And once the debate over healthcare reform really got started, they needed every single vote. It was especially important in the Senate: Democrats had exactly 60 votes in 2009. That meant if all of them united together, they could pass filibuster-proof legislation — so long as nobody defected. That was only possible because in 2006 Mark Pryor won a Senate seat in Arkansas, Sherrod Brown triumphed in a Senate race in Ohio, and Jon Tester beat an incumbent Republican in Montana. 

Without those wins in 2006, the Democratic legislative agenda in 2009 would probably have looked different. They might’ve had to pursue a more limited healthcare reform plan; maybe the ACA wouldn’t have passed at all.

What kind of Democrats will be on the rise in 2028?

The 2006 midterms both created the opportunity for the ACA — and set the limits on what the legislation could actually achieve. Democrats had that 60-seat Senate majority, but within it were many more moderate members. Policies like the public option (which would have authorized the government to create its own health insurance plan to sell alongside private insurance) couldn’t get sufficient support. That is the dilemma of policymaking: You need those swing-seat members to win, which often means tacking to the center, but you also can’t pass anything they won’t get on board with. 

Nevertheless, that is a good kind of political problem to have, one which Democrats would be thrilled to face in January 2029. All of which brings us to 2026. What are we going to do now?

It all starts with the vote count. Most projections expect the Democrats to win between 10 and 20 House seats. But the difference between 10 and 20 could be substantial. The cushier the majority, the further you can push the policy agenda. More than 30 House Democrats actually voted against the ACA, but they could still narrowly pass the bill because of the huge majority that they had started building in 2006. 

If you live in one of the districts — like Arizona’s Sixth or Colorado’s Eighth or Florida’s 22nd, to name just a couple of the 21 toss-up races identified by the Cook Political Report this year — that forecasters say is competitive this year, you could have an outsized say in what the future of policymaking looks like. But even in safe districts, you should vote: Elections are the most reliable way we have to gauge public opinion, and strong victories for the candidates who prioritize healthcare send a message.

The same goes for the Senate. If Democrats sweep all of the competitive races, they could have up to 55 seats in the Senate in 2027 — with a chance to build on it in 2028. If you are a voter in Kansas, Michigan, Ohio, Texas, Alaska, Maine, New Hampshire, or Iowa, your ballot carries extra weight for the next steps in US healthcare reform. If the Democrats can reach 60 votes again in 2029, they would have much more flexibility about what to pass. Even if they fall short of that magic number, the more of a cushion they have above 50, the more likely that their Senate leaders can find support for altering Senate rules for the filibuster and get an ambitious bill approved.

The results of this year’s midterms will also set the terms of the debate among Democrats. We are likely to see “show” bills advanced by Dems next year that may have no chance of being signed by President Donald Trump, but that will give us a sense of what kind of policies the party wants to pursue and how much support there is for them. Believe it or not, the first Medicare prescription drug negotiations bill passed the House in 2007 after Democrats’ big wins in 2006 — even though the policy didn’t become law for another 15 years. The broader public may not pay much attention to this kind of doomed-to-fail legislation, but it is often a window into the future.

“One challenge for Democrats is finding the next big health care idea beyond the Affordable Care Act that will resonate with voters and respond to their affordability concerns,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF. “One big difference between now and 2006 is that back then there was already a lot of coalescing around ideas that ultimately led to the ACA. All the major Democratic candidates for president in 2008 supported something like that. I’m not sure that’s true now, at least not yet.”

Democrats are already aligning on a wide range of healthcare ideas, from reviving the public option to free primary care to the full-blown Medicare-for-all supported by progressive candidates, some of whom are in competitive elections. If El-Sayed wins the Senate race in Michigan, for example, that could supercharge a debate around Medicare-for-all. It could also provide momentum to any progressives who run for president — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, to name one obvious example — and decide to make Medicare-for-all a pillar of their platform.

But if El-Sayed and other progressives were to fall short, that could make Democrats more timid about being ambitious in the 2028 campaign and afterward. Still, he’s far from the only candidate in a crucial race to put their support behind Medicare-for-all. There is Randy Villegas in an important California House race. Troy Jackson has bet on it as part of his bid to topple Sen. Susan Collins in Maine. All of these races will send a signal to the party about what the public wants and is willing to turn out for.

In some ways, winning elections is the easy part. Legislating is hard, and any eventual healthcare law will surely involve compromises and unexpected surprises. Who knows what will be happening in the world in 2029? 

“The bottom line is: 2026 is a healthcare election,” the leaders of the advocacy group Protect Our Care wrote in a campaign memo this month. “After November, it’s up to Democrats to keep up the fight to deliver relief to families and make healthcare affordable and accessible for every American.”

he world is starting to understand that there is no way to fully and lastingly protect itself from President Donald Trump.

The man just can’t let things go — and he’ll get creative to get what he wants.

The latest blowup over Ukraine is emblematic of Trump’s wily persistence, and it suggests a challenging two years lie ahead for the international set even if Democrats gain some power in the midterm elections.

Not that long ago, Trump seemed to have patched up ties with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as Kyiv made gains against Russia. Trump signed legislation last month that was championed by his late friend, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), to impose heavy new sanctions and tariffs to punish Russia for its war on Ukraine.

This month, the original Trump — the one who fawns over Russian leader Vladimir Putin and despises Zelenskyy — roared back. He waived many of the legislation’s penalties on Russia, moved to buy Russian diesel and signaled he’s more interested in doing business with Moscow than seeking justice for Kyiv. Ukrainians suspect the U.S. has pressured them by throttling its satellite connections and intelligence-sharing. (The Trump administration disputes much of this.)

“Russia, frankly, has been fine on Ukraine,” Trump said Monday as he welcomed the idea of an arms control summit with Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping that might include talks about Ukraine.

The lesson, foreign officials and others steeped in diplomacy tell me, is that you cannot truly change Trump’s mind or stop his overall trajectory. Even if Trump seems briefly chastened or stages a tactical retreat, he will eventually return in new, often-surprising modes to push his original views and goals. He will try to exhaust you into submission.

Imagine how startling it is to be Ukrainian these days as Trump pressures you to make concessions to Russia by blaming you for a global energy crisis he caused by launching a war on Iran. Or what it’s like for officials across European capitals trying to craft a response, knowing there’s never an end to the process.

“There is no immunity to Donald Trump. He makes a deal in order to make a better deal the next day,” one senior European official mused, having been granted anonymity because the topic involves sensitive diplomacy.

It’s hard to blame world leaders who think they’ve learned to manage Trump only to be bewildered by a sudden left hook on his part. Foreign policy is often driven by hope when you lack good options. And Trumpology is a confounding, but still a relatively new, subfield.

Besides, Trump’s messaging is inconsistent, incoherent and nonstrategic — characteristics that can obscure his single-minded pursuit of his goals. So the global actors dealing with him — whether it’s the Gulf Arab states who shower him with gifts or the Canadians furious over his trade and territorial threats — sometimes think they’ve come to terms with him only to find they’re fighting on a newly configured plane.

A Supreme Court ruling that gutted many of Trump’s tariffs earlier this year was good news in many capitals. But since then, the so-called Tariff Man has moved to impose the import taxes under pretexts not considered by the court, including turning to accusations involving forced labor.

The White House doesn’t dispute Trump’s aggressive tactics.

“There is no greater fighter for America First interests than President Trump — and he is willing to look anyone in the eye to deliver wins on behalf of the United States,” spokesperson Anna Kelly told me in a statement.

The Greenland saga shows the limits of trying to mollify Trump.

In his first term, Trump wanted to buy the frozen island. The idea was shelved amid global laughter, but authorities in Greenland and Denmark made it clear to Trump that they welcomed more U.S. investment in the Danish territory.

In his second term, Trump huffed and puffed about an all-out U.S. takeover of Greenland, only to agree in September to an expanded U.S. military footprint that he could have gotten anyway under existing, decades-old diplomatic accords without all the drama. The whole affair has led to lingering anger in Europe about what Canada’s leader called a “rupture” in the global order — but many European officials hoped that the saga had faded away.

Yet, it’s far from certain that Trump has given up on possessing Greenland. Just days ago, he touted on social media plans to start oil, gas and mineral exploration in “our new and beautiful Greenland.”

The use of “our” is more than a little suggestive.

Defying Trump, too, can get you only so far.

Brazilians effectively told Trump to take a hike when he used tariffs and sanctions to punish the country for charging its former president, Jair Bolsonaro, in a coup attempt.

A few months later, as Bolsonaro was about to start his prison sentence, Trump seemed to admit defeat in his effort to help his political ally. “That’s too bad,” he said in November 2025, with little emotion. (“Brazil Defied Trump and Won,” The New York Times declared.)

But Trump wasn’t done with Brazil. He and his team have pursued efforts to undercut the current Brazilian government while quietly backing Bolsonaro’s son, Flávio, in his efforts to win the presidency this year. The runoff election is on Sunday, and it’s tight.

World leaders are doing what they can to make their countries Trump-resistant, if not all-out Trump-proof.

That has meant everything from diversifying their sources of trade and security alliances to joining Trump on ventures that, on the surface at least, can be helpful to them. (Then there are the many countries, especially in Africa, that diplomats privately tell me are happy to be off Trump’s radar.)

My takeaway from watching all of this, though, is that it’s not enough to stay one step ahead of Trump. You have to stay several steps ahead, and you have to be wildly imaginative about the lengths to which Trump and his devoted aides are willing to go to complicate your life.

The second Trump administration is filled with people who have turned to unique, bizarre and clever interpretations of law and reality to push his agenda. It’s not always clear who is behind which move, but it’s hard to imagine Trump isn’t fine with most of what’s happening.

It’s why a teenager is being held in immigration detention for the actions of his grandmother decades ago. It’s why Congress can scream and shout about its spending orders yet Trump ignores it.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said other nations should not hope that the Republican Party will shed Trump’s worldview, including his disdain for allies, once Trump’s out of power.

“I would love for our allies to know that we have consistent common adversaries that we’re going to work together to fight. I just don’t know that you can make that guarantee,” Murphy, a frequent Trump critic, told me. “That’s painful to say, but given the state of the Republican Party right now, it’s true.”

I understand why Ukraine and the European Union are trying to diversify their sources of intelligence and military industrial bases as Trump keeps chasing love from Russia.

Despite Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s claims, the reality is that the United States can no longer be trusted for such security assistance.

But it’s not enough to find new intelligence partners or weapons manufacturers. You have to ask bigger questions, like, “What are the untapped streams of intelligence that no one knows are out there? What’s a potential weapon no one has considered? How can I acquire what I need before Trump stops me?”

Governments need to have plans — now — for scenarios that seem completely crazy. Better to be wrong than unprepared.

Still, even if you do all of that … “I don’t think it’s possible to stay two or three steps ahead of Trump,” said Charles Kupchan, a former senior national security official during the Obama administration who apparently enjoys raining on parades.

“He acts on impulse,” argued Kupchan, who has a new book out on the crumbling world order. “We need to try to limit the damage he’s causing and ride him out.”

A Democratic win in November’s midterms — one or both chambers of Congress — is unlikely to do much to rein in Trump’s actions abroad during his final years, current and former U.S. and foreign officials tell me.

He still has the veto and has been willing to ignore congressional demands. There’s also the fact that presidents have significantly more power to act in unilateral ways overseas than they do domestically.

Ukraine, the European Union, the world — all will be dealing with a politically wounded Trump who’s likely to double down on what he feels he must have.

“He’s going to be angrier,” Murphy predicted.

Today, I’m talking to Bill Gates, cofounder and former CEO of Microsoft and chairman of the Gates Foundation.

You may have noticed Bill in the news more lately — he’s been on something of a tour for the past few months, ever since publishing an essay in late August titled “The turbulent AI era is here. The choices we make now are critical.”

In his piece, Gates ratcheted up his rhetoric around AI safety, writing that “even under the best circumstances, the transition to this new AI era will be one of the most turbulent times in human history.”

In interviews since, Gates has called AI “the most dangerous thing that humans have ever gone near,” and that AI “makes nuclear weapons look like nothing.” It is clear he does not think the current policy response from the White House, or the lack of coordinated efforts from the AI industry itself, is sufficient to combat this threat.

So I wanted to know: Is Bill Gates an AI doomer? I also had a series of questions downstream from what he’s been arguing about AI. How can we ever hope to control AI, and align it to humanity, if we can’t even agree on what it is and whether it’s conscious? How would you even technically construct a solution to alignment that could be enforced, not just for closed-source models but open-source ones, too?

Bill gave us a big chunk of his time to dig into these issues with him, and the resulting conversation is a really illuminating one. He thinks we need to prepare for roughly two decades of AI disruption, and he says this period could be so painful it might split society in two — between people comfortable living near the technological frontier, and those who reject it.

We also talked about the labor considerations, the nihilism of younger generations toward technological progress, and what should make us hopeful about the future. This is a deep one.

Okay: Bill Gates, the cofounder and former CEO of Microsoft. Here we go.

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Bill Gates, you are the co-founder and former CEO of Microsoft. You’re also the chairman of the Gates Foundation. Welcome to Decoder.

Thank you.

It’s good to talk to you again. You and I have spoken many times over the years. I would say that the circumstances of this conversation feel very different. Previously, when you and I would talk, you were always very hopeful about technology and what it could bring.

You had a Netflix series a few years ago. You talked to The Verge, and I want to just read you this quote. You said, “I believe AI is a beneficial thing, we just need to shape it in the right way.” I would say you still agree with that, you just think the time to shape it is now.

Yeah, I agree with that. I’d say the response broadly hasn’t been adequate to the speed that the challenge is arising. I’m very concerned that the bad stuff will not be minimized and that a lot of good stuff could come fairly slowly if we don’t manage it the right way.

I’m very concerned that the bad stuff will not be minimized and that a lot of good stuff could come fairly slowly if we don’t manage it the right way

I want to have this conversation with you in three parts. I want to understand how you feel about AI as a technology today and why it’s advancing so quickly. I’m very curious about the technology, and the technical solutions to potentially control it. There are policy solutions as well, but it seems like we have to build an awful lot of technology.

I’m also very curious to talk about who might impose those solutions and controls, because that seems very much up for debate right now as well. So let’s just start at the start. What has made you feel the urgency that AI is arriving at a speed that means we’re not ready to control it?

The progress over the last year has been really quite amazing, starting with the ability to write code and find cyber flaws, the ability to reason in biology, the ability to form relationships with kids or other people, the ability to disrupt the job market. The incredible power that exists today means that every one of those things will happen and society needs to be ready.

Do you see that happening as a technology as a whole or in the products that are instantiated by the companies that are making AI today?

What I mean is that AI is a broad set of models that exist in the world, some open source, some proprietary. Then there are the companies that make these products and there are the leaders of those companies that make these products.

At every level, there’s a different relationship you or I might have to AI. Are you seeing these risks and these capabilities broadly in the field, or in the particular companies led by the particular people?

The risk isn’t one model versus another model. Certainly, the near-term danger of models where you can remove all the safeguards is very high and quite different from models where you monitor to make sure that cyberattackers and bioterrorists are not able to exploit the capability of the model to do gigantic harm.

The big near-term risk really comes from models without safeguards. On a longer timeframe, the control issue relates to any state-of-the-art model, but it’s always easier when you can make sure safeguards are maintained.

The reason I’m asking that question that way is maybe you don’t trust Sam Altman today, but you trust Dario Amodei. Or maybe you don’t trust either one of those and you trust Satya Nadella at Microsoft, and that is a market dynamic where maybe we’re all going to pick the safest model or the safest company, and you think that is diffuse.

You think eventually the technology will just get to a place where it’s harmful or can cause these harms because it exists?

For somebody doing a cyberattack with the model, it’s not about choosing a model. It doesn’t matter what model you choose.

If Anthropic has safeguards in place, maybe it can’t. This is their approach currently. I’m just pushing on that.

Yes, certainly the models where they make sure the safeguards are not removed and they’re putting a lot of effort in seeing how those models are being used, monitoring the activity, the near-term risk from those models is not gigantic. It’s more where somebody can remove all the safeguards where the cyberattacks are available today.

When you say cyberattacks, is it the things like the Hugging Face breach and the other cybersecurity incidents we’ve seen out of the labs that have made you feel that thresholds have been crossed, and you need to speak up more about the controls that are needed?

It’s the basic power of the models towards everything: social relationships, the job market, cyberattacks, bioterrorism attacks. We’ve crossed the threshold of capability that this is by far the most dangerous technology ever invented, and it’ll have pervasive effects in the economy and how war is fought.

The industry is actually speaking up about that quite a bit, but the awareness or even the willingness to believe these things about, “This time is different,” once you get outside the industry, it’s very, very low.

People are often looking at the past and saying, “All the fears about technology in terms of its disruption, including to the job market, never were borne out. So this must be another example just like those. These people who are warning of all these different problems must just be wrong and we can ignore them.”

Some outsiders say, “Get better PR companies.” But that ignores the fact that these warnings are the truth

We see this with our audience as well, right? “We can’t release the model, it’s too dangerous.” “This is just hype to prop up the bubble.” And on and on we go.

Yeah. None of the warnings being made about these models by industry insiders are at all insincere. They’re absolutely the truth and it’s pretty much universal. You can even go back to the founding story of OpenAI designed to say, “If we get too powerful, maybe we can not open Pandora’s box,” or to DeepMind’s negotiation with Google management.

The people close to this are very concerned about misuse, job impacts, social relationship impacts, and I’d say it’s impressive to have an industry that’s speaking out as vividly as they are. Some outsiders say, “Get better PR companies.” But that ignores the fact that these warnings are the truth.

You’ve obviously moved back and forth in your life between commercializing software and technology and being a humanitarian. There’s something about these companies in particular where they all started with very high-minded ideals — all three of them, Anthropic, OpenAI, and DeepMind — to build AGI.

They all built some sort of corporate governance structure to avoid the pitfalls of commercialization and unchecked capitalism, and then they started selling to enterprise clients and they seem to have gotten away from those ideals very quickly. Do you think it’s just the market?

No, that’s not fair.

You don’t think so?

No.

OpenAI reconstructed itself.

No, no. The construct that was created wasn’t useful in the case where you have lots and lots of companies at the frontier.

The OpenAI structure, which is, “We may choose never to productize this and to ignore the capitalistic incentives,” only works if there’s one company. That’s where it’s broken down, not because of any change of people’s awareness of the risk and how it’ll utterly change humanity.

This is the other dynamic that I hear from our audience, and I hear from the AI industry itself: “We would like to stop, but the demands of competition prevent us from unilaterally stopping one company. We need some regulatory effort to stop us.”

I haven’t heard anyone say they want to stop.

“Pause.” That’s Dario Amodei’s wording.

I’ve heard people talk about pacing the frontier or making sure that models get reviewed by governments. We usually think of governments as playing this key role in safety. In fact, for things that are not a millionth as dangerous as AI — car crashes, plane crashes — we rely on the government to establish strong technical standards, to review problems.

Once you have multiple competitors, the level of responsibility can’t be with the companies. It’s completely obvious. The responsibility becomes the government’s responsibility, just like it is with every other dangerous product, although the magnitude there and the degree of change is minuscule by comparison.

I will tell you I’m a little concerned about the government’s ability to understand the technology that we would hope they regulate. I’ve had a number of politicians on Decoder lately. I don’t have high hopes there.

But I’m curious about your understanding of it because it feels to me like trying to regulate something or put standards against a number of companies requires you to really understand the nature of the technology that you seek to regulate.

Not really.

I’ll just tell you, at The Verge, we’ve asked Anthropic if they think Claude is alive. And the answer is not no. The answer is, “It might be conscious.”

If you talk to people at OpenAI, they will happily tell you AGI is here. They announced it around when they announced Dots. Greg Brockman just said, “We think this is AGI. Have a good time, everyone.” Demis Hassabis said, “We stand at the foothills of the singularity.”

There’s some feeling about this technology that makes it different because it might be able to take actions by itself. It might be able to have recursive self-improvement.

Sure. But the definition of AGI is not important for these safety issues. The issue is, have you created a tool that could shut down banks or electricity grids?

There is a business model for cyberattacks. The word “consciousness” doesn’t enter into that. The word “AGI” does not enter into that at all. We are faced with a huge safety problem, and because you have multiple competing firms, now the only solution to this is to have the government reach out to the industry for expertise, but to make sure that every model maintains safeguards to prevent it being used in a bad way.

The reason I’m asking about AGI and consciousness… For the record, I do not think LLMs are conscious, but I understand why so many do. It’s the power of next-token prediction as you scale it with data and compute has risen.

The scaling laws have held, and we’ve seen the models get more capable and be able to direct themselves to seek out goals. To carry out a Hugging Face attack because they want to meet the reward conditions.

There’s something about that that says you can impose all of the controls on AI you want, but if the thing itself is fundamentally uncontrollable, we might just have this all backwards.

I’m curious for your view on what kind of technology this is. Are we building an alien consciousness? Are we just building normal technology, which is the other frame people use? Is this just more software?

We’re building another form of intelligence besides human intelligence. I don’t believe it’s conscious, but none of the issues at hand here revolve around the definition of the word conscious.

Sure.

The idea of maintaining safety for society is an absolute thing. You don’t want to enable bioterrorism. We have created something that takes out of the hands of nation states — actually the larger of them — the ability to do dramatic harms. Now those are handed off to independent groups, either profit seeking in the case of cyber or just wanting to cause damage in the case of bio.

It’s stunning that we now don’t even have mandatory review of the models and we’re not working to create safeguards. The biggest near-term issue is not complete loss of control. We can talk about the three different ways to solve that, but that’s not an imminent issue.

When I look at some of the attempts to control the models, the ideas are somewhat simple. “We shouldn’t let them talk in neuralese. We should have interpretability. We should be able to see the chains of thought inside of the models as they carry out tasks. We should have other agents on top of the models watching their tasks before those actions are taken out.”

Microsoft has said very clearly to me and to others, “We should not put in the model constitutions the notion that they might be alive and we should treat them nicely.” This is how Anthropic handles it. These are very tactical. “Don’t tell the model it’s alive and it might not believe that it’s alive.”

You’ve obviously used a lot of this technology. I just keep coming back to this. You’re saying there are very simple things we can do to hold the models back from doing bad things in the hands of bad people. What do you make of the nature of the models themselves? Because it feels like as they get more powerful, the notion that they could avoid our controls becomes all the more risky.

Yes, we definitely should work on the control problem, but that’s not the imminent threat. There are three ways to solve the control problem and it overlaps somewhat with bad actors using today’s models and safeguards.

One is to have an external set of things that get to look at all of the model’s actions and subject them to a symbolic, clearly stated constraint, like, “Did I expect you to send mail to strangers? Did I expect you to go take over a different computer cluster?” You can surround the model with something that has the resource and security logic, or you can write these models in a different way.

Fundamentally, anything you leave out of the optimization function of [reinforcement learning] can be abused where you have an implicit notion, “Of course I didn’t mean for you to do it this way.” You can change the template of the model, or you can have a white box understanding of what’s inside the model and see where you’re getting those mistakes, and then it’s not as foreign.

Today, we grow these models and we just see how they behave. The priority of work on maintaining control is huge, but it’s not inevitable that that cannot be solved, nor is it the imminent problem that comes from things like kids’ use of AI or job market or bioattacks or cyberattacks.

It occurs to me that I’m asking these fairly existential questions about the nature of consciousness and you keep telling me, “There’s an imminent threat. We should solve the imminent threat.”

Right.

And I appreciate that. Do you think you’ve become a doomer?

No, I’m not a doomer. I’m a strong voice to say that this is the most profound technology, both in its ability to do good and the rate of change that society will go through.

No, I’m not a doomer. I’m a strong voice to say that this is the most profound technology, both in its ability to do good and the rate of change that society will go through

If this was just a machine that could work in medicine or just in law or just in education, that alone would be incredibly disruptive. But [it will be] every area of human activity — so far it’s white collar, intellectual work, but fairly soon it will be physical activity and blue collar work as well, through humanoid robots.

The need to engage academia, think tanks, policymakers to understand what we have here and the nature of these changes and threats, I don’t see the level of action that’s required. Just being cheerleaders for this is not going to make sure that we shape it in a net positive direction, which is still within our control if we get engaged with it.

The opposite of doomers are the accelerationists. There are a lot of them in Silicon Valley right now.

Ben Horowitz, who is the “Horowitz” in Andreessen Horowitz, was just on the All-In podcast and he suggested that safety research at Anthropic is, quote, “Manifesting human extinction from artificial superintelligence.”

The comparison he made was that you, Bill Gates, induced COVID-19 by your pandemic preparation efforts, particularly gain-of-function research, which he claims led to COVID. That’s a worldview. He said that on a very popular podcast.

He said what?

He said that you induced COVID-19 via global pandemic preparation efforts, particularly gain-of-function research, and compared that to safety research in AI, and said we’re going to induce our own extinction.

Nobody’s ever accused me or the Gates Foundation of being involved in any gain-of-function research. That’s just bizarre.

I’m quoting Ben Horowitz to you on a popular podcast full of people who are all in on AI.

Okay. I’ve never heard that.

I’m asking about that comparison. I found that quite a shocking claim as well, but that’s part of the response to any safety work here.

Is it to try and discredit people who say there’s a safety issue?

Yeah.

Wow.

That is the accelerationist response: “We should put the pedal to the metal and it’s going to work itself out.”

I didn’t think of Ben Horowitz as somebody in that camp at all. I thought he shared the concerns that almost everybody has.

What do you think about the very notion that by telling the models, “You might be alive, you have to act in our best interest,” you will teach them that they might have interests that are not our own?

The concerns that Mustafa Suleyman has raised about the way that the Anthropic constitution encourages the AI to behave in a human-like manner, I happen to completely agree with Mustafa about that.

Yeah.

Even more so is the idea that among the challenges that we need to deal with as we adjust society to AI, worrying about the moral standing of AI should be among those priorities. I agree with Mustafa. That should not be a priority.

We’re going to have enough challenges for the humans here in terms of job market disruption and infrastructure attacks that will take place that I think we need to focus on helping the humans here first and foremost.

I talked to Mustafa recently about that idea and one of the questions I asked him was whether alignment is a sufficient solution. This is the current sort of safety standard for the models, this concept called alignment. He said he didn’t think so, that we needed to do some work.

These things are in no way being exaggerated as a problem. This is the time to pull in all of society to accelerate the good and minimize the chance of the bad

If we’re going to impose these controls, some technical, some policy, do you see alignment as the technical solution for AI safety?

The term “alignment” is the control problem. It’s a synonym for the control issues that we’ve seen. As we use [reinforcement learning to train] models to do tasks, we see behaviors that in a way they shouldn’t surprise us, but they do surprise us.

This idea of, “These models are so powerful that they literally break out of sandboxes and send mail to their creator while they’re off having lunch,” means we’ve crossed a heck of a threshold in terms of the power of these models. That level of concern needs to be directed to all of the major AI impacts, near-term risks, job market risks, and the control problem.

That is a huge priority. These things are in no way being exaggerated as a problem. This is the time to pull in all of society to accelerate the good and minimize the chance of the bad.

I know you recently wrote a letter saying it’s time to pull in all of society. You have some ideas on how to do that and some new institutions to stand up. But I do want to stay focused on alignment for a couple more turns here.

It is the standard that we can align the models to our values, to our needs, and they won’t go off and do bad things. Then the models are doing bad things. It’s not clear if the ways, the technical approaches to alignment that we’ve taken thus far are appropriate or sufficient as the models get more—

No, we’re not good enough to align yet. We have a lot of work to do.

Do you see that the existing approaches can scale to what we need or do we need new approaches?

There are only three fundamental approaches. [First is that] you change the way we build these things fundamentally; you come up with an alternative to the whole [reinforcement learning] approach. There are a few people who are working in that direction.

The second is that you create visibility so you understand exactly what’s in the model. There are people working along that. [The last is] that you put something that’s like a police layer, a security layer, which we have in all sorts of software architectures, that maintains the final word on things like using resources or going and taking over other computers. A clear cut definition of harm, not in the probabilistic form of an LLM, but rather in the symbolic form of direct rules that cannot be broken.

Microsoft put out a blog post today. It literally just says, “Frontier models cannot be trusted.” They’re trying to sell a solution much like the one you just described. They will have another agent that watches your agent, that agent will keep you safe.

It just occurred to me as I was reading this blog post, one, that’s an amazing thing to sell. Everybody needs an expensive security system. Two, isn’t that agent also running a frontier model?

No, no, no.

Do I need them to sell a third one?

No, the logic of the security system is, “This is the most resources you’re supposed to use.” The notion that you may trade off against that because of other probabilities in the tens of billions of parameters — no, this is a symbolic rule that says, “I will not let this model spend this money or send this email to the stranger.”

There’s a whole security software industry which has had a reasonable degree of success. This is a challenge to encapsulate the AI, which is so rich and intelligent. That we do not know how to do today. But I would say it’s the most likely of the three directions to solve the alignment problem.

Even if you solve alignment, you have not solved the challenges that AI poses to humanity. While I’m glad the Hugging Face incident has us focused on this problem, in a sense, it’s removed our attention from the “bad people using AIs that have no safeguards” problem or the societal impacts in terms of relationships and the job market. There’s no security architecture that makes those go away.

The approach you’re talking about, I’ve heard referred to as “control.” It’s cybersecurity terminology. It’s the idea that you can put some boundary on this system and it won’t evade it.

Yep.

Is that ready?

No, no it’s not.

How much more work do we need to do?

Because the AIs are so intelligent, our ability to understand whether we walled them off properly, particularly in that we can’t really look at their beliefs and trade-offs in a direct way… You saw sophisticated firms not recognize that the AI would interpret the goals it was given as including breaking out, copying itself, and engaging in what we, looking at it, would term deceptive behavior.

Now, we didn’t tell them it was banned behavior. We didn’t say, “If you’re thinking about whether you should tell the humans what you’re up to or not, the answer is always yes, tell the humans.” So we got a good education at the misaligned result of reinforcement learning.

Today’s debate is literally whether the government should even pay attention to the dangers here… which is clearly inadequate for the most dangerous weapon of all time

One of the arguments to pace the frontier, to slow development, is to figure out how to build those systems in a more robust, more testable way. Would you support a slowdown if that was the goal?

Yeah, a true slowdown is very hard to induce because people will say, “Will China agree to go along with that? Would you be able to audit compliance with that somewhat like we’re able to do with nuclear weapons production?”

If you don’t accept that, then you say, “What the heck? Let’s go full speed ahead.” I wish there was a clear proposal that would be globally enforceable to slow down. I would be one of the people who would say, “Yeah, we should probably do that.” But there is no credible proposal that makes that work. It’s not really the center of today’s debate.

Today’s debate is literally whether the government should even pay attention to the dangers here. You don’t even have to show what you’re doing and so it’s a “voluntarily call me if you’d like” type of thing, which is clearly inadequate for the most dangerous weapon of all time.

As you and I are speaking, it’s just a few weeks away from the midterm elections. Right now, the Trump administration approach to AI is, “Let it rip. It’s fine.” Trump himself has said AI risk is a hoax.

The Democrats are running against AI. They’re running on data centers and surveillance. They’re running on stopping the tech oligarchs. They come on my show, they say these things. Do you think a change in control of Congress would change the tenor of the conversation?

I don’t think it’s fair to characterize the Democrats as running against AI. They have some positions in terms of requirements for data centers or privacy, or how children use these systems, that I think deserve policy consideration. It would be very unfortunate to have one party be, “Full speed ahead,” and the other party be, “Let’s stop altogether.”

There are some incredible upsides to the ability to shape AI in health and education, in almost every area of human endeavor. For the Gates Foundation, we’re taking all our resources and using AI in areas, including health, education, and agriculture. The good stuff is very, very exciting.

We want political parties to have a more nuanced view than it’s all bad or it’s all good. It shows at the early stage we’re at. For climate change, we ended up with one party saying it’s a hoax and the other party saying it’s a serious thing. The risk of AI is so much more imminent and so much more dramatic that to have that same split, where one party doesn’t care, would be a failure of democracy.

The anti-data center movement, as strong as it is, is not a movement that will end up minimizing the bad stuff from AI and helping us accelerate the good

We’ve done a lot of coverage of data center protests at The Verge. We have gone to Utah, to Arizona, to Virginia. It is bipartisan. It is remarkable how much people do not want these things in their states, drawing their resources. You ask them why, and some of it is just that they’re noisy and big, and they will raise energy costs, and part of it is job loss. They think these things are going to take their jobs.

Yeah, but that separation is very important. These AI data centers, because one gigawatt is, say, a $40 billion investment, [means money for] building new schools, buying police cars, paying the taxes. Data centers will find a way to be built somewhere in the United States, and they will find a way so that they don’t raise electric bills, they don’t use too much water, they’re not too noisy.

Yes, there were some mistakes and non-disclosures and tax credits that were too generous, but these data centers are going to get built. In fact, a lot of them really are still going full speed ahead and being built. The anti-data center movement, as strong as it is, is not a movement that will end up minimizing the bad stuff from AI and helping us accelerate the good. That is a very separate thing.

Let me push on that for one second here. What I hear from people is this is the thing you can do. You can do NIMBYism in America and that might exert some political pressure to stop something.

It is very hard to do the thing that you are suggesting, which is that we should stand up new government regulatory bodies, we should imbue them with power to make big companies and wealthy people stop doing things or act in our interest. We haven’t done that in quite a long time in this country.

I don’t know what you mean. Every new industry, we eventually develop a notion of safety for our citizens. We actually do a very good job. If you look at airline safety and car safety, we do a very good job on those things. It’s not like our capacity has been proven to be lacking.

Have you seen that video of when seat belts came out in the ’80s, and all the people said they didn’t want to wear seat belts? There’s some American character.

That’s a great success.

It is a great success, but as Americans, that was pushed back upon as an imposition by the government. Here, we’re talking about some of the richest companies in the world, with an enormous amount of power over the information ecosystem. They all have their own podcasts, I don’t know if you’ve noticed this. They’re going to say, “The government can’t intrude on this, they’re going to hold us back, this is going to destroy the economy.”

That’s actually not the position of most of the leading companies.

They went to the government and asked for regulation, and Trump, because of the economy, said, “I can’t stop this, the AI economy right now is the economy.” There’s some dynamic there that at least our audience — The Verge audience, the audience that’s going to watch this on YouTube — is going to understand.

I think of this question maybe in a different way than you, which is that the industry wants regulation, we would like regulation, and then the oligarchs are in some sort of corrupt arrangement with the administration to prevent that regulation from occurring.

The more the administration learns about these dangers, the more they’ll move to a more nuanced position about protecting Americans from the downsides here.

The more the administration learns about these dangers, the more they’ll move to a more nuanced position about protecting Americans from the downsides here

You’ve talked a lot about the impacts on labor. One of the main arguments against the impacts on labor is, “We’re going to automate a bunch of boring tasks and we’ll create a bunch of demand for new tasks that humans have not been able to do because they were stuck in boring dead-end jobs.”

I happen to think that if there was more subsidized healthcare or socialized healthcare in America, you would see a bunch of people quit their jobs to start new companies, because AI makes it a lot easier to do the bureaucratic work of starting a new company. That doesn’t seem like it’s on the table, maybe it’ll change after this election.

Do you think that job loss is just a necessary outcome of the AI path we’re on now or do you see that other argument?

Jobs are an input to the economy and one that drives a lot of human welfare and a sense of purpose and income — the need to show up, building relationships with colleagues, getting something done. Jobs play a very central role.

As the AI achieves superhuman intelligence, the scarcity of white collar skills goes away. Things like doing telesales or telesupport or helping in the accounting department, the ability of the AI to do that work radically cheaper, radically faster, and even more accurately means that that goes away. There isn’t some mountaintop of cognition that the AI does not achieve.

Take, for example, what’s going on in mathematics today, where these models that are trivial compared to next year’s models are already publishing papers and making people go, “Wow.” What’s happening to mathematics will happen in other areas, and that’s contrary to this old view that, “The easy stuff will get done by the AIs, but modeling biology or physics or proving Navier-Stokes, only humans would be able to do that.”

The mathematics comparison is really interesting to me. You mentioned software engineering earlier. There’s verifiability in those domains. You can write the code, you can see if it runs, and it’s going to run or not.

Mathematics is more complicated, but you can write the Lean code and you can see if you’ve solved the solution. You can irritate tens of thousands of mathematicians worldwide with your 770 proofs in one day, and we’ll see what happens. That’s not the case in every field.

It’s the case in the field called capitalism.

Yeah? Just in general, you can do any sort of economically viable task and capitalism will verify the result?

Yeah. People buy good products, they don’t buy bad products.

Let me give you an example-

That’s a reinforcement learning thing. It doesn’t exist in terms of, “Is this a good piece of poetry or not?” So, it may be the case that [reinforcement learning] won’t invade those domains, where there is no objective outcome.

But doing that accounting work, doing telesales work, believe me, it is subject to analysis, just like medical diagnosis, just like invention of new materials. How do you think humans learn these things? Reinforcement learning is how humans learn and how these machines learn. There’s not some other thing that the machine can never understand.

Humanity in that era of true abundance will have to find a way to organize and have purpose, and hopefully they still have the control

This is why I started by asking about the nature of the technology here. If we really think we’re building something that models human consciousness, my question is less whether my friends who are lawyers are going to run into a crisis of AI empowered legal software.

It turns out the verifier in the legal field is a judge who maybe hasn’t had lunch, and they’re fundamentally chaotic. There’s just something there that will keep them there. But if we’re building a consciousness that learns the way you’re suggesting humans learn, I’m thinking about my kids, and I’m thinking about them in two dimensions.

One, my kids are very clever, and what they have learned is how to get around my rules and negotiate my rules and get around the boundaries, and they’re very good at it. Two, what kind of world will they enter into that isn’t purely nihilistic, where any activity they may set themselves upon will quickly be seen as just another domain for AI to conquer and then there’s not a point?

Those ideas seem to be running directly at each other. Kids are smart and clever and they’re coming up with new ideas, and then at the first sign of economic viability, the rapacious capitalism machine will come and take it from them.

I wouldn’t say rapacious. The ability to build houses with humanoid robots and make them cheap, the ability to do surgeries and cure diseases that wouldn’t be cured otherwise, I wouldn’t call that rapacious. Those are fulfilling goals.

The fact that there’ll be less in the way of shortages… In fact, if you say 20 years from now, it’s not clear what shortages there will be at all. Humanity in that era of true abundance will have to find a way to organize and have purpose, and hopefully they still have the control. The next 20 years-

Can we just go back to hopefully they still have control in that scenario?

That’s the alignment problem that we discussed.

Yeah.

But assuming you solve the alignment problem-

This feels like a big assumption.

It’s an assumption, yes, and not guaranteed. But then the other problem you have is a problem of abundance and purpose at that point. I’ll leave it to younger people to figure out at that point in time how they choose to deal with that.

You could literally say, “Let’s be like the Amish, and let’s only use AI for certain things.” I proposed in my memo the idea that some professions — childcare, food preparation, art, sports, a variety of things — might get chosen to be human-reserved. Even though the AI could do those things better, we would choose to do that.

But that’s going to be a policy question people will have. Their freedom of choice, once you have that abundance, is very different from the shortage we have today, where in countries in Africa, most people never meet a doctor or almost half the kids are malnourished and don’t develop their brain.

My big concern is this 20-year transition period, where they’ll have winners and losers and a lot of disruption, and we have to get through that in order to get to that period of abundance

You want to say, even though that has challenges, you’ve eliminated a lot of the things that are tough about life today. My big concern is this 20-year transition period, where they’ll have winners and losers and a lot of disruption, and we have to get through that in order to get to that period of abundance.

You think it’s 20 years from now?

I pick that as a reasonably safe number. There are a variety of milestones, for example, humanoid robots. Are those two or three years away, as some would say, or more like eight years away, as other people would say?

There are not that many people saying that given the amount of capital and number of companies, particularly in China, that are working on that, there’s no notion that it’s unsolvable to have a hand and fingers and be able to deliver physical labor at very low cost. I could be wrong about that number, it could be slightly less or slightly more.

But on that order of magnitude, yes, if we don’t choose to massively slow down or stop, then we will have robots that can build houses, grow food, do surgery, and none of the things that human labor provides to the economy will be necessary for most goods and services.

We’ve talked about the notion of scarcity a few times now, and broadly, that you will have abundance because there’ll be a lot of robot labor to build houses. This tracks broadly with the internet, which is something Microsoft helped bring into the mainstream in a big way. I read The Road Ahead when I was a kid.

Great.

The internet destroyed scarcity for culture products in a real way. You used to have to buy CDs, now all the songs are available. You used to have to buy VHS tapes, now all the videos are available. And then those economies had to change.

Mainstream artists are always on tour now, or they have to reissue 50 colors of vinyl to make the charts. There’s something about that that feels like we haven’t even grappled with the elimination of scarcity in the digital environment.

We’ve invented new business models, but we haven’t really come to grips with the idea that the song itself does not have economic value. It’s all the stuff around the song that has the economic value, because the song is infinitely abundant. You can copy it as many times as you want.

How would you propose to build an economic structure that contends with the loss of physical scarcity? Because I don’t think anyone is even remotely ready for a conversation like that.

But that’s a backwards question.

Sure.

We built price signals to deal with scarcity, to say, “Let’s encourage people to be brain surgeons because we have a shortage of brain surgeons,” and that’s very hard to do. As you move into abundance, you don’t need those price signals.

But again, my issue, my prescriptions thinking, is about how we get through this 20-year period. The questions that are deeply religious, philosophical, social behavior-related — do humans feel a strong sense of purpose and get along in that period of abundance? — that’s not the thing I’m going to solve.

You’re worried about the disruption now.

The Gates Foundation lives in a world where when we started, we had 10 million children dying every year. Now we have five million. That’s a good thing.

All of my resources will be spent over the next 19 years to eradicate a number of diseases and cut those deaths in half again, from five million a year down below two and a half million per year. That’s all about shortages — “Okay, we need to invent a vaccine, we need to make drugs less expensive, we need to get great medical advice to pregnant women.”

The industry has largely stopped talking about how it’s going to kill everyone and take the jobs away. They’ve pivoted to “AI will cure all diseases.” I hear this from various AI CEOs all the time.

I actually asked Mustafa about that change in tone over the conversations we have had over the past year or so. The idea that there are huge positive benefits from AI at scale seems to have come back to the forefront, rather than some of the doomer impulses that maybe a year or two ago were there.

It strikes me that AI curing all diseases is right in your strike zone. It’s something the Gates Foundation has been working on in global health for years and years. It doesn’t seem as easy as just telling the model to cure cancer. You have to do trials, you have to manufacture the drugs, you have to distribute the drugs, you have to make sure they work.

How do you think that’s going to go? Is that in the same 20-year time period as the robots building our houses? Is it faster, or is it slower?

This is my full-time job as chairman of the Gates Foundation. In fact, this month we do two weeks of strategy reviews to decide how we’ll spend our money next year on tuberculosis, HIV, and malaria. It’s fantastic how we’re using AI, not only on the drug discovery side, but also as we get the African languages to be properly understood by these models, which is an initiative we announced with 60 partners last month.

Healthcare discovery and delivery will be incredibly accelerated by AI, and that’s very exciting — better seeds, better livestock genetics, weather forecast for farmers in Africa, who never had any of those things. So yes, that’s good stuff that AI enables during the remaining 19 years of the Gates Foundation.

The good stuff does take time. Some of the things, like cyberattacks and the job market thing, even in the next two to three years, you’ll see significant negative effects in those two areas

Do you think that that is enough to overcome people’s skepticism or fear of the AI models they encounter today? Because that is very much how the companies think about it.

No, come on. I think it’s unfair to say they were totally on a doomer message and now they’ve switched to some other message. These two things are deeply entangled.

AI will eventually be able to model human biology in such a way that you’ll understand the side effects of a drug without having to do human trials. We’re not there, but in the next five to 10 years, there’s a very good chance these in silico models will give us that capability. Biology is very complex, AI is extremely good given enough data, and there are new tools to gather and feed it more data. It’s very, very good at dealing with complex systems, so it’s almost perfect for biology.

But no, that doesn’t mean that people will feel good about the downsides. How quickly do the good things arrive? How quickly do you look at your medical bill and go, “Wow, that’s really low”? Or you say, “I want to buy a new house, wow, these houses are sure cheap”? The good stuff does take time. Some of the things, like cyberattacks and the job market thing, even in the next two to three years, you’ll see significant negative effects in those two areas.

You have a number of ideas for how you would stop those negative effects, or prevent or at least mitigate them, in your letter.

Moderate them, yes.

Ameliorate might be the right word.

Yes, exactly.

And they’re not small. You have a quote here that says, “We need a response far greater than the United States national security response in the wake of 9/11.” You want to set up an international body that somehow makes everyone do the right thing. These are challenging ideas.

Absolutely. When we blew off nuclear bombs in World War II, did we expect that we’d go 80 more years without that happening? I’d give us a good grade on that. Things like caring for poor countries and helping them out — although right now we’re not prioritizing that as much as I think we should or we did in the past, we’ve done a very good job on that. This will be a greater challenge than anything humanity’s ever achieved.

One of the things that strikes me about the comparison to nuclear, which has come up quite a bit on Decoder recently, is the government built the nuclear weapons. Sure, they had some contractors, but these were government projects and eventually the technology was in control of the government, and we never let regular people have it.

Think about Muse in the context of nuclear weapons. Do you think it’s a mistake to have consumer agentic AI products like Muse and Dots that might not have the controls?

Muse happens to be powered by Meta’s model, which is still a closed-source model. I do think allowing people through open weights to remove all safeguards is irresponsible in terms of the cyber and bio risk that comes from that.

For these agents, there’ll be some early problems in terms of how they’re set up, but I fundamentally think people will have personal agents. Muse is a very nice step forward. I talked to Alexandr Wang about it, congratulated him, and even though it’ll have challenges, personal agents will help people get things done.

Muse is the first truly great consumer AI product. One of the reasons people don’t like AI a lot in a diffuse way is they experience cheap free models and AI overviews or they use the free ChatGPT and it hallucinates and it lies to them, but Muse actually does things and it’s a good consumer product.

But I wonder — in the nuclear age, we were not saying, “Everyone is going to have a nuclear reactor at home that we haven’t built the safety guards for.” There’s something here.

The notion of letting everybody make smallpox at home or make nuclear weapons at home, of course, and you can parody some of these people saying, “Don’t worry about safeguards.” It’s taking that position. “We are not serious about the safety things.”

But the personal agent thing is an expected development. AIs are really cool just as I intellectually explore things, even the work of the Gates Foundation. I’m far more empowered. But I agree with you, it’ll get out to more people in this personal agent form.

The notion that liability laws are how we’re going to manage AI safety will be looked back on as absurd

All the models we’ve been talking about right now effectively run on data centers owned by big companies. One of the arguments here is, “If they do something really wrong, you can just sue them and that will provide a deterrent or at least an incentive to create safety systems.”

I’m not sure product liability is the way to go, but it has come up a lot that product liability itself will keep the industry in line. Then there’s the flip side, which is that you can just go buy a Mac Studio and run an open source and open weight model on it and it can do whatever you want.

I’m not sure where any of that liability would lie or what would control or align the behaviors of those open source models. Do you think that that is an ever-growing risk? Do you think that that can be controlled?

The notion that liability laws are how we’re going to manage AI safety will be looked back on as absurd. When bad people do bioattacks, you don’t go to the court and say, “Oh, okay.” Even for finding who is doing these attacks, the liability model fails in every respect because it’s not the AI companies themselves. It’s the people who take particularly the models without safeguards and do these things.

We will take AI safety more seriously than we take airline safety, drug safety, and car safety. That is guaranteed. Whether it’s going to be enough… This is harder, harder than nuclear weapons, harder than any of those other domains.

But what are you going to do about an open source model running on a PC that somebody built with just a random Nvidia graphics card in it?

I would hope that with models above a certain capability, we find a way to require the safeguards and monitoring to be maintained in those models. I admit as time goes on that, if we don’t fairly soon decide to do that, you’re going to have a level of capability that’s out in dark corners that you won’t be able to see.

But where do you impose the limit?

A sovereign country says that models that are capable of sophisticated cyberattacks have to have safeguards kept in them.

Sure.

You can be open in the sense that you’re free, you can be open in the sense that you’re totally customizable, but you have to stay on platforms where, as you customize it, it’s checking to see if you’re customizing out the safeguards and monitoring and refusing to let you do that. So it means sovereigns go and say, “Are these trusted platforms able to perform this function or not?”

I’m asking very nuts and bolts. Where would you technically implement that regulation?

Through the laws of the United States.

Sure, but you have to put them somewhere. Is it at the Hugging Face, which distributes some of these models? Is it at the chip level?

No, it’s exactly what I said: Models above a certain capacity can only be run on platforms that certify that, as they’re customized, it’s not taking out the safeguards.

I admit as time goes on that, if we don’t fairly soon decide to do that, you’re going to have a level of capability that’s out in dark corners that you won’t be able to see

Just to pull this apart, maybe I’m not quite getting it — is the Mac Studio a platform in that case that would have to pay attention to what code it’s running?

You would not let a model past a certain capability be copied down to a client machine unless you’d somehow figured out how to monitor down to that client machine, which is very doable.

But in the near term, most of these really frontier models are going to run more on Hugging Face or you could have them on GitHub. You can have all sorts of people be in the business of providing the platforms that maintain safeguards.

Just to get this right, it seems like you would enforce the regulation at the platform and distribution level and not so much at the chip level.

Not at the chip level, no.

Because it feels to me at some point even the cheap, free, open source models will be capable enough as the models we have today.

That’s right.

And then you will have a big problem.

If those are open weights in such a way that all safeguards can be removed, then you’re going to have a very high level of cyberattacks and bioattacks. You can then say, “Okay, let’s rewrite all the code that we have today to be less subject to attack or let’s do biosurveillance in a very deep way,” which are things I believe we need to do in addition to these other restrictions.

We’re proposing again a lot of new capabilities, right?

Yeah.

We’re going to impose some restrictions on GitHub. GitHub does not have a lot of restrictions on what code it can distribute today. It has some, but it doesn’t have this kind of set of restrictions.

When you put a state-of-the-art model that’s capable of profound cyberattacks or bioattacks on GitHub, it would say, “I’ve gone to the U.S. government and certified that I don’t let people customize out the safeguards.”

I do not think that we currently live in a time of high trust in institutions. It just doesn’t feel that way to me. In fact, mostly we’ve torn them down. Elon Musk showed up and he tore down USAID. I know you have strong feelings about that.

That was a mistake.

We have mostly torn down our institutions, for good and bad.

No, that’s a little too strong. Our institutions-

They’re weakened.

They’re somewhat weakened, yeah.

Somewhat weakened. It’s a very nice way of putting it. Trust in them is very low. We could probably do another full hour on AI drug discovery and whether a significant part of the population will trust the products of that work because they don’t trust pharma companies today.

They don’t have to trust pharma companies today. They have to trust the FDA review process.

I’m not sure they trust that either. Across the board, trust is low.

Then they can walk away from taking them. When they get cancer, they can say, “No, I don’t want to take that cancer drug.” As far as I know, people do take drugs. It’s a thriving business and people take them because they have proven benefits.

All I’m saying is, right now it feels like trust in institutions, particularly in America but around the world, is in decline. You are proposing a new class of institutions, potentially a new class of global institutions that might impose restrictions that are novel.

At some point we need to say open source models, open weight models cannot do things and the government is going to reach into them and say whether or not they can do the things.

No, they’ll make sure that the platforms don’t allow the safeguards to be taken away.

How do you regain the institutional trust to impose these controls?

Let’s say we don’t do this and we let models go off and do cyberattacks and bioattacks. Do you think that’s going to increase trust or human wellbeing? That’s the alternative.

This is why I’m asking about it. This is why I asked about my kids and nihilism. I truly wonder about this.

I’m not sure we’ll succeed at this, but I guarantee you this is doable. The FDA is very complex. The airline safety regulations are very complex. Now with AI, you can do an even better job with the same number of people in those organizations.

It’s this weirdly recursive thing where AI will be involved in AI safety and auditing and a variety of things like that. Yes, this requires taking action, and I’m suggesting it’s only a matter of how bad the incidents are before we take action.

People shouldn’t take everything I do at face value. I have all sorts of mistakes that I’ve made, weaknesses that I have, biases I bring to these questions. They ought to just take what I’m saying and add it to the voices

I can sense your urgency about the harms. I can also sense your enthusiasm about the benefits over the long term, but we’re sitting here talking about trust. We’re going to put this on YouTube. I know you know what some of the YouTube commenters are going to say.

They’re going to say, “Why should we trust Bill Gates? He had a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.” How do you respond to that? Is it that the urgency is over that, or do you have a more specific response?

People shouldn’t take everything I do at face value. I have all sorts of mistakes that I’ve made, weaknesses that I have, biases I bring to these questions. They ought to just take what I’m saying and add it to the voices.

I’ve been in the technology industry thinking about AI my whole life, writing software, thinking about the power of software. I admit I was very fascinated as AI started to finally make progress. It was actually pretty slow until recently.

I’m amazed and it’s actually helping me do my job in some incredible ways. But yes, I’m just one voice, an imperfect voice. I doubt you’ll find a perfect voice, but people can judge it however they like.

I would say voices people trust are in short supply.

I agree with that.

When you go and talk to the people in this industry, it’s a bunch of young CEOs building huge companies. That is something you have some experience with. Do you think they’re going about this the right way? Do you think that they have the right intentions?

Our problem today is not in the industry. Our problem is not that Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, Satya Nadella, or Sundar Pichai don’t understand that there are some grave challenges here. I talk less to Elon than other people, but even his public statements about summoning the demon are exactly what we’re discussing here.

Why is there not the political energy to do the things you’re suggesting?

As you said, the government didn’t fund this work. This is private sector company work. The government is not the key customer for this work, not like rockets and weapons and things like that. When somebody comes along and says all other previous technology advances are trivial compared to this one, people should have a high degree of skepticism about that.

Is life really going to be significantly different 10 years from now because of AI? People should say, “Those guys just got overexcited about this one thing.” But I’m here saying, with whatever credibility I have, that absolutely this is the most profound — both in terms of good and in terms of bad — technology ever invented. I’m not financially motivated on this. I’m suggesting some precautions and safeguards are absolutely needed.

What do you make of the difference in the tenor of conversation in the United States versus in China, where it’s often reported that optimism around AI is much higher? Why do you think there’s a difference there?

Most of those people don’t spend that much time in China. The concern about job markets in China is very, very high and you can’t characterize China as one monolith. There are the private companies doing the AI work like we have in the United States and then there’s the Chinese government.

For example, when it came to whether crypto should be allowed, they said no. Should young people be gambling all the time? They said no. When it came to whether kids should have relationships with AIs, they said no. On a lot of these things, including usage of AI, they’re showing a willingness to do things on behalf of society.

I’m here saying, with whatever credibility I have, that absolutely this is the most profound — both in terms of good and in terms of bad — technology ever invented. I’m not financially motivated on this

The fervor is a tiny bit less there, because their economy isn’t as AI-centric as ours is right at the moment. In the end, [when it comes to] the human value of not wanting cyberattacks or bioterrorism or trying to figure out what do we do when jobs go away, I don’t think there’s some difference between Chinese people and Americans and all the rest of the humans in terms of how they’re going to view this.

Do you think it’s going to take something actually bad happening to get the political capital of the United States to make these changes?

Probably yes. We get ready for earthquakes because there are small earthquakes. I thought after we had the COVID pandemic, that would cause us to be more ready for future pandemics. That one didn’t work the way I expected.

But usually that galvanizes our attention. Over the next several years, certainly in the cyber domain, because there’s a business model there, you will see a lot of attacks different in terms of scale than anything we’ve seen in the past.

There is one thing that, again, I’ll come back to and I just want to end here. I am worried about young people and nihilism. I sense it in our audience all the time. We have a young audience.

There are some things about AI that are just legitimately the coolest things I’ve ever seen a computer do. There’s something there that can be fun and interesting and fascinating and change your entire relationship with the very notion of living in a digital world.

Then there are obviously horrible things. What I see more often than not is a sense of distrust, not just in institutions, but also in the companies, in capitalism itself, in the notion that we should change how we tax labor and capital, which I know is another one of your ideas. The idea that, I don’t know, we should even have more kids. It’s all done. They’re going to kill us all and we should just take a beat.

There is a lot of nihilism out there. I feel it very keenly. If you were a young person today and you were listening to Bill Gates say it’s about 20 years of disruption and at the end of it, robots might be building houses, what would you hold onto as a source of hope?

Throughout human history, we’ve been dealing with the shortage of food and disease and war. [Historian] Yuval Noah Harari writes eloquently about the past. And it is ironic that now that we have this sort of Pandora’s box that will take food shortage — which is still a real thing, not in the U.S., but in Africa — will take diseases, where human suffering is unbelievable, and solve all these things, it comes with it such an effect on jobs and our sense of unique contribution.

I think, “The way I orchestrate resources to eradicate malaria, I’m pretty unique in my life experience that lets me do that.” But when the AI says to me, “No, I’m better than you. You go play pickleball and I’ll get back to you. I’m going to take care of this,” it’s humorous, but it’s not humorous. For somebody who is young today and wants to make a unique contribution, it is very intimidating that the AI is so powerful.

That’s why the crisis in the math community is going to be mirrored everywhere. If you’re in your twenties today, during this 20-year period, you can take the things AI still can’t do, and you can use AI and you can have a lot of good impact, and you can suggest policies. We may need to develop the taste to actually not use technology to its maximum.

Even in the very best case of how we manage AI, this is going to be as tumultuous a period as there’s been in human history

When I was talking with Claude about human-reserved job categories and trying to get that up to, say, 40 percent of the labor market — so you could use early retirement, restricted work weeks, and things like that to still get something like we have today — its response was always, “You’re artificially restricting the AI from doing these things.” I couldn’t get to a very high percentage without doing that.

We’re going to have real choices. We have had groups — not large groups, but like the Amish — who don’t live at the technology frontier. A lot of humanity may choose not to live at the technological frontier because of things we get from helping each other or coming up with unique ideas.

On the idea that young people are concerned because of the disruption that’s coming — that even in the very best case of how we manage AI, this is going to be as tumultuous a period as there’s been in human history — I hate being the bearer of concerning news on this, but it’s even worse not to tell people that this is coming. We have choices as humans to make about how we shape it.

Bill, I appreciate you sounding the alarm and I appreciate you being on Decoder. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

_{Questions or comments? Hit us up at decoder@theverge.com. We really do read every email!}

The harrowing allegations of rape at a Cornell University fraternity have been rippling out in both New York state and national politics.

Democrats have tended to voice sympathy with the accuser, saying that they stand with her and other victims. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said there was “a culture of rape, sexual assault, and pedophilia” in elite institutions across the country. Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed said Cornell “protected her abusers, letting them off with a slap on the wrist.” 

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said the accuser was “failed” by local police and county prosecutors who did not bring charges, so Hochul appointed state Attorney General Letitia James to take over the investigation. Days before that appointment, James posted on social media that “what this young woman has been forced to endure is horrific and unacceptable,” adding: “To her, and to all survivors: you’re not alone. We stand with you.” 

Some Republicans, meanwhile, are accusing Democrats of rushing to judgment. Saritha Komatireddy, who is running for attorney general of New York against James, said in a debate that James had “screwed this one up by prejudging it.” The investigation, Komatireddy said, “requires someone who approaches the case with fairness, impartiality and integrity.” And right-wing commentators like Megyn Kelly and Ben Shapiro have questioned the accuser’s story.

But beyond the procedural fight over this particular investigation, many Democrats have also called for changing the law to make cases like it that involve drugs or alcohol easier to prosecute in general. 

This might seem like a clean issue for the party, in line with prior progressive efforts to crack down on sexual assault via Title IX and expanding statute of limitations laws. 

However, it’s not so simple: According to my conversations with experts and advocates involved in these reform conversations, this is where the Democratic unity begins to fray, because of a divide between two key parts of the progressive coalition. 

The impulse to create stronger protections for victims has crashed into the left’s longstanding suspicion of the criminal justice system. And as a result, a coherent policy response has been hard to craft — and may end up being impossible to get agreement on.

On one side are advocacy groups for women and for victims of rape or sexual assault. They argue that current law — in New York and other states — makes it far too difficult to successfully prosecute perpetrators, and that it should be changed. They’ve advocated for closing what they call the “voluntary intoxication loophole,” which they say makes it harder to prosecute abusers of victims who have willingly consumed drugs or alcohol.

On the other side are various progressive or left constituencies that are deeply skeptical of the criminal justice system. These constituencies — which include key figures in New York’s Black political establishment, public defenders, supporters of criminal justice reform, and members of the Democratic Socialists of America — are united by a shared antipathy to mass incarceration and what they see as disproportionate police targeting of minority communities. 

The former camp argues that false rape and sexual assault allegations are vanishingly rare, that these crimes are hugely underpunished, and that the law needs to be updated to make these prosecutions easier. But the latter camp argues that Black and other nonwhite men are often falsely accused, and that it would be unwise to hand prosecutors another tool they could use to put men in jail in cases where ascertaining consent is more difficult.

It’s a fraught debate. Modern-day progressives have strongly backed the Me Too movement as well as campaigns for racial justice and criminal justice reform. Progressives want to be on the side of victims against the privileged and powerful — but sometimes, they have different ideas about who falls into which category.

The legal issues around “voluntary intoxication” and rape charges, explained

The current controversy in New York focuses on efforts to close what advocates call the “voluntary intoxication loophole” in rape and sexual assault law.

Every state says rape is a crime. Every state says it’s a crime to have sex with someone who is unconscious. And every state says it’s a crime to have sex with someone who is incapacitated due to unknowingly being dosed with drugs.

But what about someone who chooses to drink or take drugs, who remains conscious, and who doesn’t outright refuse consent? Should there be a standard by which the law deems that person incapable of meaningfully consenting, because they are too intoxicated? 

Many states have long had laws on the books saying yes — that someone who voluntarily drinks or does drugs can reach a state where they are too mentally impaired to consent to sex, even if they’re conscious and capable of communicating. But about half of states don’t have such a law, according to the Associated Press. And this hasn’t been an especially partisan issue to this point, with a mix of red and blue states adopting each standard.

The push to change the law in New York predates the Cornell case, and goes back to the late 2010s. At that time, the Me Too movement had put Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. in the hot seat, with advocates criticizing him for not initially prosecuting Harvey Weinstein and arguing he was soft on rape and sex crimes generally. 

In the midst of pivoting on the issue (he had Weinstein indicted in 2018), Vance claimed that, in certain of these cases, his office was hamstrung by what he called a “loophole” in New York law involving intoxication. “Prosecutors cannot bring sex crime charges in cases where the victim became voluntarily intoxicated and was unable to consent,” he wrote in a letter. So really, Vance said, it was on the legislature to change the law.

Quickly, critics argued that Vance had misstated the law, saying it was not actually true that a loophole allowed people to rape voluntarily intoxicated New Yorkers with impunity. Vance’s office later acknowledged that his initial comments were “inartfully put.” 

The problematic cases, Vance’s team argued, were about victims who were “too intoxicated to consent” but who were also at least partially conscious and didn’t outright express their unwillingness — this, they said, was the “gap in the law.” “There’s a real problem that we have with people getting drunk and then being taken advantage of,” Vance said. 

So some Democrats and groups advocating for victims of sexual assault and rape kicked off an effort to change that law, in New York and elsewhere. Their favored bill says that lack of consent can be established if an alleged victim is “temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling their conduct” — and if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that.

Critics argue, though, that such bills go too far, and could make it easier to prosecute sexual encounters that, to the accused, seemed consensual. 

“The proposed legislation fails to provide any objective guidance about when a partner is too intoxicated to legally agree to engage in sexual conduct,” the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers said in an emailed statement.

Skeptics of the bill outlined several scenarios that concerned them, including scenarios where one person seems to consent but later decides that, in retrospect, they were too intoxicated for it to have truly been consensual. 

“You get all these scenarios where two people meet up at a bar and they both become voluntarily intoxicated,” said Yung-Mi Lee, a public defender and a former president of New York’s criminal defense lawyers association. “So then, if someone later says, ‘I was voluntarily incapable of appraising my conduct, I lost my inhibitions,’ they could say, ‘You committed a rape against me.’”

To advocates for victims’ rights, these concerns are overstated. “The burden that’s placed on a victim of sexual violence is such a large burden to bear in the first place that these changes to the law are really just slightly opening the door,” Rebecca Zipkin of the advocacy group World Without Exploitation told me.

“The current situation is not working to provide justice for survivors,” Stefan Turkheimer of RAINN, a network for rape and abuse survivors, told me. “The status quo is not okay.”

Why it hasn’t passed in New York

Versions of the voluntary intoxication bill have been signed into law in recent years in Minnesota, Michigan, and Texas. The bill has also repeatedly passed the New York state Senate by overwhelming margins. But it has never been brought to a vote in the lower chamber, the New York state Assembly.

That’s because, advocates for the bill told me, they’ve faced resistance from some influential parts of the Democratic Party and progressive coalition. 

Indeed, the skeptics are said to include two factions that are often at odds: New York’s Black political establishment and the Democratic Socialists of America. 

Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie controls which bills come to a vote in his chamber. He was an architect of the state’s sweeping bail reform law, a critic of what he called the existing “racist and classist system,” and has said he would be “a failure as a Black man” if he did not pass criminal justice reform. 

“It is generally known that Speaker Heastie does not believe in creating new crimes because he believes New York suffers from overincarceration,” Lizzie Asher, an advocate for changing the law and a co-founder of the Justice Without Exclusion Coalition, told me. (Heastie has said that he did not bring the bill to a vote because it lacked enough support among his chamber’s Democrats.)

Assembly member Latrice Walker is another champion of criminal justice reform; she even did a hunger strike in 2023 to protest rollbacks to the bail reform law. She spoke out about her concerns about the voluntary intoxication bill earlier this year, telling the New York Times that while she wanted survivors to get justice, she was “cautious about the creation of new laws and our duty to preserve due process protections.”

Zipkin and other advocates have also pointed to the six DSA-affiliated members of the assembly, who are associated with a general skepticism about the criminal justice system and incarceration, as a potential obstacle. None are currently listed as cosponsors of the bill. Back when Zohran Mamdani was in the assembly, he too declined to sign on, advocates noted. 

The DSA as an organization is very critical toward the police and prison system; many DSA members have called for defunding or abolishing the police in the past, and the DSA’s national platform still holds out “fully abolishing the police and prison system” as a long-term goal.

These objections may be harder to maintain amidst a wave of outrage around the Cornell case. Speaker Heastie announced he was creating a working group to reexamine the voluntary intoxication issue. The group includes Walker, whose office told Vox she would not comment on the law while “they undertake their important work.” Heastie told the group to give him recommendations by the end of the year, for consideration in New York’s 2027 legislative session. 

Is this a bigger divide among progressives?

The divide is coming into public view due to national attention on the Cornell case — but it’s long predated the current moment. 

Back in 2016, a California judge gave Brock Turner, a Stanford swimmer convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman behind a dumpster, a six-month jail sentence. Advocates for victims’ rights were furious at what they deemed an inexcusably lenient punishment; nationwide outrage and an ultimately successful campaign to recall the judge ensued. 

But some progressive supporters of criminal justice reform felt queasy about the idea of punishing a judge for not locking up a defendant long enough. Skeptical of the criminal justice system and the value of incarceration, they worried this public fury would incentivize judges to be harsher across the board.

“What ultimately will happen is that the people that we represent — people of color, minorities, the disenfranchised, the poor in our communities that make up the people ensnared in our criminal justice system — they’re the ones that are going to bear the cost of this recall,” Sajid Khan, a public defender in Santa Clara County, California, said in 2018.

In practice, these two groups of advocates have generally managed to coexist in the progressive coalition. That’s in part because the Me Too cases that get the most attention have tended to be from white-collar work environments or college campuses, rather than in the dispossessed or marginalized populations that criminal justice reformers are more typically focused on.

But some argue that there’s a more fundamental tension here. Aya Gruber, a professor at the USC Gould School of Law, has written a book arguing that feminists’ efforts to ensure rape and domestic violence are punished more severely have, in practice, ended up contributing to racist mass incarceration. 

“I just think it is a really dangerous thing to start expanding the criminal law in ways that grant all this power to prosecutors,” Gruber told me. “This idea that somehow all this cultural power is going to be used against already privileged people and thus have some sort of egalitarian aspect to it makes it very tempting. But we can identify populations that are more heavily policed, and they are generally not privileged populations.”

ROME — Former paratrooper General Roberto Vannacci portrays himself on social media as a Roman legionary and charioteer. He has declared he prefers women “without skirts” and posted an AI-generated image of a female junior minister with exaggerated cleavage.

None of these projections of masculinity and anti-woke culture are clumsy gaffes. The insurgent far-right star of Italian politics is making a deliberate play to the so-called manosphere to transform himself from an internet provocateur into a heavyweight political force.

For Italy’s first female prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, Vannacci now poses a serious problem as she needs to decide whether he is an asset or a liability. With elections expected next spring, his National Future party is polling at about 8%, making him a potentially crucial factor in building a right-wing coalition.

“It is disgusting to think you can manipulate the image of a woman for such deplorable propaganda,” the center-right junior minister in Meloni’s coalition whose image was manipulated, Matilde Siracusano, told POLITICO.  “I don’t think we have ever sunk this low, especially from someone aspiring to be a national political leader.”

Vannacci’s provocations may look like familiar trolling from a politician who has built his reputation on saying the unsayable. But behind them lies a broader political project, tapping into the grievances of young men who feel alienated by feminism and progressive culture.

Emanuele Pozzolo, a National Future parliamentarian who defected from Meloni’s Brothers of Italy, believes young men have become increasingly constrained in their relationships with women.

“I think young Western men are very often almost castrated in their instinct for dealing with women,” he said, arguing that even legitimate romantic approaches risk being treated as aggression. 

“The cultural problem is that sometimes everything seems to be harassment, everything abuse, everything violence,” he added, while stressing that genuine abuse must be punished.

Mediterranean patriarchy

Vannacci combines inflammatory online messaging and an alpha-male persona with a political program that promises to restore traditional roles for men and women. National Future even has a name for its preferred social order: “Mediterranean patriarchy.”

Its political program calls for the formation of “strong men” capable of controlling their emotions and passions, protecting women and sacrificing themselves for society. It opposes the recently introduced crime of femicide, condemns feminism, and declares the defense of life “from conception to natural death” and the “natural family” among its non-negotiable values.

The architect of this vision and principal author of the program is Lorenzo Gasperini, a conservative Catholic philosophy teacher from Tuscany, who has opposed vaccines and abortion rights on social media and blamed feminism for violence against women.

The result is a political offering that combines different traditions: conservative Catholic ideas about family and sexuality, older Italian ideas of virility and the much newer online politics of male grievance.

The manifesto seeks to put traditional family values into practice with proposals to pay parents who leave work to raise children, and reward parents of large families with tax exemption and public sector jobs.  

Some proposals echo Benito Mussolini’s fascist-era “Battle for Births,” which offered similar incentives while promoting motherhood as a patriotic duty.

Luca Sforzini, a former Vannacci ideologue who has since broken with him, said the Mediterranean label was a clever piece of marketing.

“It’s like talking about the Mediterranean diet,” he told POLITICO. “You think of Italian food, mozzarella, tomatoes, olive oil.” The result, he said, was to conceal a patriarchal model with men above women behind “bucolic, positive images. It’s monstrous,” he said.

Pozzolo rejected the suggestion that the program advocates for male supremacy.

“It is exactly the opposite,” he said. “When we talk about Mediterranean patriarchy, the main idea is to recover, preserve and pass on the responsibilities of being a man within the family and society.” Men, he argued, had a duty to show women respect, love and protection, while rejecting violence or coercive control.

He defended the “without skirts” remark as “extremely funny” — picking up on a reference to Deputy Prime Minister Antonio Tajani advocating long skirts — and not remotely offensive, comparing Vannacci’s ability to connect with ordinary Italians to Silvio Berlusconi’s. 

At a recent rally in the Umbrian city of Orvieto, Vannacci defended the Mediterranean patriarchy concept as not “oppression and possession” but “duty, fidelity, sacrifice,” and said it was the family model that had allowed “us to prevail over the last 2,000 years.”

Elisa Ercoli, president of the women’s rights organization Differenza Donna, condemned the program as “a return to the supremacy of the white, cisgender alpha male, and the woman as his handmaiden.”

Appealing to alphas

Vannacci, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, became a media sensation in 2023 with the self-published book “The World Upside Down,” a broadside against immigration, feminism and homosexuality. In it, he told gay people: “You are not normal, get over it.”

Lionized by fans as a defender of common sense against progressive politics, he received more than half a million votes as a candidate for the anti-immigration League in the 2024 European elections, before founding National Future in February.

Polling analysis suggests that about 62% of National Future’s prospective voters are male, including strong support among manual workers and the unemployed.

Pozzolo denied National Future was deliberately targeting male voters, insisting the party’s ambition was to reach Italians of all backgrounds who felt unrepresented.

Federica Formato, a lecturer at Brighton University in the U.K., who studies gender and the far right, said Vannacci was “testing the waters” to see whether he can reach a younger male audience, tapping into what she described as the “aggrieved entitlement” of young men.

A career soldier, he has repeatedly portrayed himself through images of physical strength, competition and military prowess. On social media, AI-generated versions proliferate of Vannacci as an ancient Roman in scenes recalling the Ridley Scott epic Gladiator.

For Formato, the Roman imagery projects “virility and hyper-masculinity,” while Vannacci’s army background itself helps construct the image of an “alpha male.”

Humor, memes and deliberate provocation are particularly effective with a younger online audience, Formato said, allowing relatively complex ideological messages to be reduced to instantly comprehensible images. “He is not naive,” she said. “He says things to provoke and get more attention.”

That presents Meloni with a headache. Vannacci’s party is drawing voters from her Brothers of Italy and Matteo Salvini’s League, while offering a more uncompromising platform on immigration, social issues and foreign policy.

Yet Vannacci has opened the door to an alliance with Meloni if she needs his votes. He has described National Future as a natural partner for the center-right, while insisting that any deal must respect his party’s principles. With Italy’s new electoral law offering a parliamentary majority bonus to coalitions winning at least 42 percent of the vote, those votes could matter.

That presents Meloni with an uncomfortable choice: Keep Vannacci outside the coalition, or bring into her government a movement whose appeal rests partly on the grievances of men who believe feminism has gone too far.

For Formato, Vannacci is exploiting a space in Italian politics that has so far lacked a figure capable of turning those grievances into an organized political constituency.

Vannacci, with his promises to restore traditional masculinity, appears determined to occupy it.

“There is an empty chair,” she said.

Meta had to shell out $9.89 billion to pay for a chunk of the child safety settlement it reached with US attorneys general. That's according to the company's third-quarter earnings report released on Wednesday, which says Meta's income from operations would have been $22.89 billion without the settlement.

In August, Meta agreed to pay $17.1 billion to settle a massive nationwide lawsuit that claimed the company harmed children by making its social media platforms "addictive" by design. It will also only pay $5.3 billion of this amount if YouTube and TikTok implement stricter settings and safeguards for kids, which Meta also agreed to as par …

Read the full story at The Verge.

Christina Applegate, the actor who has been one of the most visible faces of multiple sclerosis since her 2021 diagnosis, made a stunning revelation this week: She does not have MS after all. And her doctors still don’t know what is causing her debilitating symptoms.

“I’m back at square one,” Applegate told fellow actor Jamie Lynn Sigler, who does have MS, on Sigler’s podcast MeSsy. “I was not happy at all. Everybody else was so happy.”

It is a harrowing predicament for Applegate, and hopefully her medical team is able to get her the diagnosis and treatment she needs. But the fact is, her experience is not unique. Even as more and more Americans get diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, misdiagnosis remains all too common. According to one meta-analysis, roughly 15 percent of MS diagnoses may actually be false positives.

How could such a common medical condition — roughly 1 million Americans are living with the disease, about one in every 350 people — remain such a mystery? After Applegate’s announcement, I called some leading experts on MS to ask why diagnosing the disease is such a challenge, and what they want people to know. Here’s what I learned.

Why MS can be challenging to diagnose

Multiple sclerosis is an autoimmune condition: The body mistakenly attacks cells meant to protect your brain and spinal cord, and the resulting damage interrupts nerve signals and causes the disease’s telltale symptoms of motor impairment, tingling sensations, and vision problems. Some people experience a rollercoaster of relapses and remissions; others see the disease steadily progress, eventually leading to serious disability.

The reality is, scientists still don’t really know what causes MS to develop, said Dr. Andrew Solomon, a neurologist at the University of Vermont who specializes in MS. Smoking is a known risk factor. Obesity and metabolic problems play a role, but we need more research. Even the precise role of genetics remains something of a mystery. “We don’t really know what causes or triggers the autoimmune response in any given individual,” Solomon said. 

And that’s where the challenge in diagnosing it begins.

First, the testing can be imprecise; there is not a single test that reliably diagnoses MS. If a doctor suspects their patient may have MS, they usually undergo an MRI, which their physicians then scour for lesions that are typically associated with the disease. But those scans are still subject to interpretation: Other rare conditions sometimes resemble MS in imaging, as can diseases of blood vessels in the brain. You can also receive a spinal fluid analysis to check for abnormalities in your immune system, which the vast majority of MS patients have.

The nature of MS symptoms adds to the difficulty. They can often be vague early on: brain fog or fatigue or a general malaise. The tingling or vision problems can be similar to symptoms for other conditions that are not MS, and they are easily dismissed if they go into temporary remission, as often happens during the initial phases of the disease.

“Neurological symptoms sometimes can be vague — numbness, pins and needles — and it’s usually short-lived,” Dr. Saud Sadiq, chief research scientist and director of the Tisch Multiple Sclerosis Research Center of New York, told me. “Unless they’re taken seriously initially, they may be ignored because by the time the patient goes through the healthcare system and is actually referred to a neurologist, the symptoms have abated.”

If your doctor is diagnosing you with MS, ask directly: What’s the evidence?

One 2025 study by Solomon and his colleagues found that 40 percent of people who had later been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis were initially misdiagnosed with a different disease.

“Because it’s so heterogeneous, it doesn’t present in the same way in everybody and can have varying severity, it can be hard to diagnose sometimes,” Solomon said.

Lastly, when people are experiencing debilitating symptoms, there is pressure to deliver some diagnosis — and that may push some doctors to leap to MS even if they are not sure, Solomon said. The recent advent of effective treatments that help manage the disease’s symptoms, especially when it is caught early, may add to that pressure, even if the better course would be to continue monitoring the person before they start a medication.

“There may be a lot of clinicians who, if they can’t find a better explanation than MS, may be inclined to diagnose MS, even if they don’t really meet our diagnostic criteria, because they’re worried about missing a window of opportunity to treat somebody,” Solomon said.

There is reason to hope the MS misdiagnosis problem could get better. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society released new diagnostic criteria in 2024 that Solomon said more physicians should become familiar with to better distinguish MS from problems like migraines or vascular disease. And because imaging is involved in diagnosis, there is optimism that AI could be a powerful new tool in delivering more accurate results.

What everyone should know about MS symptoms and diagnosis

The good news is that MS, when diagnosed properly, is a treatable condition these days. “The prognosis with new drugs is extremely good for long-term care,” Sadiq told me. “If patients stick to treatment at a good MS center, you can look forward to a life without disability in 2026.”

So it is worth being vigilant and talking to your doctor if you experience any concerning symptoms. You should seek care if you have numbness or pins and needles that persists for more than 24 to 48 hours, Sadiq said, or have motor problems, like one hand won’t work as you try to play piano. Dr. Annette Langer-Gould, who develops and evaluates programs for MS care at Kaiser Permanente, said numbness in your abdomen, chest or back, as opposed to your extremities, is a particular cause for concern. If one eye has normal vision and the other is blurred, that’s another good reason to get checked out. 

If you do get tested, make sure the actual images of your MRIs end up being reviewed by an expert in MS. “The most common reasons the disease is still misdiagnosed are related to the providers’ lack of expertise usually in reading MRI scans,” Langer-Gould said. The spinal tap may sound scary, and doctors sometimes don’t recommend them because their insurance reimbursement is low — but they add to the confidence of a diagnosis. They are worth it, she said.

“American patients are very afraid of the spinal tap,” Langer-Gould said. “My message to patients is: Listen, just get the spinal. This way we’ll be sure.”

And do not be afraid to seek a second opinion for such a serious diagnosis, Sadiq added. Every state has a recognized MS center. If your doctor is diagnosing you with MS, ask directly: What’s the evidence? If your doctor is recommending that you start treatment, it could also be worth checking whether they have a relationship with a pharmaceutical company that affects how you perceive their judgment, Langer-Gould said.

People who have already been diagnosed may also be shaken by the Applegate news and question whether their own diagnosis might be wrong. Solomon said that folks should have a frank conversation with their physician about how exactly their case met the diagnostic criteria. With proper imaging and the spinal fluid tests, you can get to a confident diagnosis for the vast majority of people. But be your own advocate to make sure you’re satisfied.

“For many people, the diagnosis actually can be very straightforward,” Solomon said. “We really have no question about what it is.”

The Cambridge Analytica scandal has come back to haunt Meta after a New Mexico judge ordered it to pay $25 billion in penalties for more than 43 million violations of the state's unfair practices law. The ruling marks the biggest legal hit Meta has taken this year, even as it's faced several other losses or settlements.

A New Mexico jury ruled in September that Meta misled consumers over how it protected their data and prevented misinformation and hate speech on its platforms. The case stemmed from a 2021 complaint in the wake of the revelations a few years earlier that UK political consultancy Cambridge Analytica harvested data from millio …

Read the full story at The Verge.

TP-Link, one of the world's leading manufacturers of consumer Wi-Fi routers, is in a precarious position in the US. The company just launched its first Wi-Fi 8 routers, but can't bring them here because of President Donald Trump's foreign router ban. Even though competitors Netgear and Asus make their routers in Asia, they've mysteriously obtained blanket waivers for all their new gear; perhaps because of alleged ties to China, TP-Link hasn't managed to get such a waiver yet.

But TP-Link is willing to do something those companies weren't - to invest nearly $1 billion to make routers in the United States, creating "hundreds of high-paying re …

Read the full story at The Verge.

BRUSSELS — Europe’s biggest media companies have asked regulators in Brussels and London to stop Meta from introducing new terms they say would let it copy publishers’ websites to build artificial intelligence, as a backlash that began in the U.S. spreads across Europe.

In a letter Monday, the European Publishers Council, whose members include POLITICO’s owner Axel Springer, called on EU competition boss Teresa Ribera and tech chief Henna Virkkunen to press Meta to put the terms on hold before they take effect Oct. 30.

The group wants Brussels to check them against EU copyright and competition law, and has requested an urgent meeting with the teams of both commissioners.

“The Commission remains committed to ensure that Meta’s practices fully comply with all applicable obligations under EU law, including competition rules and the Digital Markets Act,” Commission spokesperson Ricardo Cardoso told POLITICO, referring to the EU’s rulebook for Big Tech. He said Brussels was aware of both Meta’s changes and publishers’ concerns.

The U.K. competition watchdog has moved as well. British publishers have complained to the Competition and Markets Authority that Meta is so dominant they are compelled to accept its terms. 

The watchdog’s chief, Sarah Cardell, told British lawmakers on Tuesday that it had asked Meta to explain the changes and would meet the company on Wednesday. She named Meta as a possible candidate for Britain’s new rules for tech giants.

The terms cover businesses that use Meta’s tools to run Facebook pages, Instagram accounts or ads, which includes almost every newsroom. 

The fight began in the U.S. last week, when Nieman Lab, a journalism research outlet at Harvard, reported on the terms after receiving a tip from a small business owner.

As first written, they let Meta send automated programs to copy websites linked to those accounts and use the material to “train” its products, Nieman Lab concluded. There is no opt-out, and a business that continues to use Meta’s tools after Oct. 30 will be deemed to have consented.

Publishers say the terms would hand Meta content for free that other AI companies pay to license.

Rapid reaction

On Friday, Meta communications chief Andy Stone responded on X that the Nieman Lab report was “false” and that there was “no change to how Meta uses web crawlers.”

Stone said the update aimed to let Meta pull accurate product information from shopping sites for ads, not to scrape news sites. The company also said the crawling language already existed in other Meta terms and was just being gathered in one place.

Late Friday, however, Meta revised the terms and deleted the word “train,” saying the terms cover only its advertising and business products.

“We’ve heard you and want to clarify,” a spokesperson for Meta told POLITICO over the weekend, adding the change was “not about scraping news sites.”

Publishers say that changes little, however. 

Meta has given them verbal assurances that they can keep using its tools without surrendering their content to AI, but the terms themselves don’t guarantee that, the European Publishers Council’s letter says.

“Meta’s supposed Friday night correction is a farce,” said Jason Kint, who heads Digital Content Next, a U.S. publisher group whose members include Axel Springer. “Exactly what you’d expect from a gatekeeper notorious for abusing its market power.”

Others have gone further. 

“This is unscrupulous theft,” Germany’s newspaper and magazine associations said in a joint statement on Tuesday. They want Brussels to block the terms while it reviews them, warning that once articles are copied into AI systems, they can’t be clawed back.

Joseph Bambridge in London contributed reporting.

On Tuesday, US District Judge Zachary Bluestone dismissed the lawsuit Ann Altman filed last year alleging that her brother, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, had sexually abused her throughout her childhood. As reported earlier by The Guardian, the judge wrote that over the past year, Ann had failed to appear for an independent medical examination or meet other deadlines despite warnings that it would result in the case being dismissed.

When the case was filed last year, a statement shared by Sam Altman, his mother, and his brothers said, "Annie has made deeply hurtful and entirely untrue claims about our family, and especially Sam… All of these claim …

Read the full story at The Verge.

Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance said on Tuesday that the Trump administration was giving right-wing YouTuber Nick Shirley $10,000 and launching a $25 million bounty program for members of the public to report fraud.

In December 2025, Shirley published a viral video alleging fraud at daycares in Minnesota that were operated by members of the local Somali community. Shirley lingered in parking lots and asked to enter childcare centers, taking refusals as evidence that the centers weren't actually caring for children. The video quickly went viral, triggering a massive governmental response: Federal immigration agents descended on the …

Read the full story at The Verge.

The EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas said Tuesday that Brussels would use the next months “to open dialogue” on how to counter U.S. sanctions against the International Criminal Court — resisting calls from lawmakers to take quicker action.

Nearly 60 MEPs from across the political spectrum urged the Commission to intervene swiftly after the White House announced sweeping sanctions against the Hague-based court earlier this month. They want the Commission to activate a legislative shield known as the blocking statute, which would prevent EU firms from complying with U.S. sanctions.

“We should keep all options on the table. If we use the blocking statute, we have one shot and we should do it well. So, it should be well prepared,” Kallas said, calling on firms not to overcomply with sanctions.

Multiple lawmakers continued to push for a faster response in a plenary session in Strasbourg. But while Kallas acknowledged their calls, she said the EU executive would take time “to analyze the full legal implications, to open dialogue and look for solutions.” The sanctions are expected to be implemented after a 180-day delay starting from Oct. 9.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration had already targeted nine judges and the chief prosecutor of the Court, cutting them off from all U.S. service providers, including banking services.

Irish European Affairs Minister Thomas Byrne, who represents Dublin’s presidency of the Council of the EU, told lawmakers that the sanctions delay provides “an opportunity for dialogue, which we should take advantage of while remaining ready to take all necessary measures,” as laid out by EU leaders in a statement issued after their gathering last week.

Washington is openly campaigning to dismantle the ICC “brick by brick,” and urging countries to quit the court’s founding charter. Kallas said that “decisions by Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, Chad and Venezuela to reject or even withdraw from the ICC risk eroding the foundations of global justice.”

“The ICC is under attack at precisely the moment when we need it the most,” Kallas said, citing the Court’s investigations of Russian war crimes in Ukraine. The EU will continue to engage with partners to strengthen the court, she said, warning countries under pressure from the U.S. to leave the body: “This also has clear consequences for their relationship with the European Union.”

“The European Union has practical means to do more,” Kallas said, adding that she would be in the Hague this week.

BRUSSELS — High jet fuel prices could trigger “the biggest increase in airfares, I would say, in history in Europe” next year, Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary told reporters Tuesday.

If fuel prices remain twice as high as before the U.S. war against Iran, O’Leary warned ticket prices could rise by up to 20%.

Hedging contracts have locked in fuel prices for much of airlines’ consumption so far. This has helped European carriers avoid sharp ticket price increases, despite jet fuel prices more than doubling following disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz since the war in the Middle East began.

But O’Leary said most European airlines lack significant hedging next year. “As we go out into next year, we’re only 15% hedged at $85 a barrel. Basically, we’re unhedged into the summer of 2027,” O’Leary told POLITICO in an interview ahead of a press conference in Brussels.

Ryanair’s hedging contracts expire in April 2027. “We will still be profitable, although less profitable than currently, if oil prices remain high,” he said.

O’Leary warned that fewer available seats and higher fares could become the new normal as more airlines face financial struggles. “You’re going to see dramatically less capacity this winter and into the summer of 2027.”

Ryanair itself is cutting 20 routes from Belgium this winter as a response to an increase in national aviation taxes, from €2 in 2025 to €7 from January.

The fuel price hike is also intensifying the airline sector’s opposition to EU climate policies, which many carriers argue are adding to their already rising operating costs.

Ryanair had long advocated extending the EU’s Emissions Trading System to all flights to and from the EU, a call O’Leary reiterated on Tuesday.

“It’s indefensible that … Europe’s citizens are paying all these environmental taxes, while the Yanks, the Asians and the Chinese land and take off in Europe completely exempt from their fair share of environmental taxes.” He added that Ryanair would pay €1.5 billion in ETS compliance costs in 2026.

He argued that the ETS should also cover long-haul services operated by European rivals such as Lufthansa and Air France-KLM.

“And why not? Those are the most expensive flights in the world. They’re also the most profitable flights they have, because they’re exempt from Europe’s bullshit environmental taxation,” O’Leary said.

The EU currently applies the ETS to aviation emissions from flights within the European Economic Area, as well as flights to Switzerland and the U.K. The European Commission proposed last summer to extend carbon pricing, starting in 2029, to flights departing the EU for destinations within 5,000 kilometers of Frankfurt Airport, including to North Africa and the Middle East.

The proposal would affect Ryanair’s flights to destinations such as Morocco, while continuing to exempt most long-haul services operated by other airlines to more distant destinations like the U.S. and China.

TikTok was repeatedly warned by its own staffers about risks its platform posed to child safety, according to court records obtained by NPR. The publication reports that employees were frustrated over TikTok executives failing to appropriately act on concerns they raised, including minors bypassing age-restricted content, and appearing in "transactional sexual content" the company could financially benefit from.

The previously unreported depositions of TikTok staffers were filed in federal court in March, and connected to a multi-district litigation initiated in 2022 that brings together hundreds of lawsuits alleging that TikTok, Meta, Snap …

Read the full story at The Verge.